Ex Parte Ainslie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2017

12492704 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/492,704 06/26/2009 Charles Ainslie 14917.1301US01/327294.01 7797
27488 7590 12/05/2017
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
SHANMUGASUNDARAM, KANNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
US PT027488 @ merchantgould .com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES AINSLIE
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DENISE M. POTHIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—13 and 21—27. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a configurable logging instrumentation
platform for tracking how users use a web site. Specifically, a logging
object is embedded in a web page, and the object retrieves a remote
configuration file comprising a logging action. An event handler may be
added to the rendered web page to capture associated user behavior. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 6—7. Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative:
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
1. A method for providing a logging platform, the method
comprising:
embedding a logging object in each of a plurality of web
pages;
rendering at least one of the plurality of web pages in an
application associated with the at least one client device, the at
least one web page providing a location of a configuration file;
in response to rendering the at least one web page,
determining that the embedded logging object is supported by
at least one client device;
in response to determining the embedded logging object
is supported by the at least one client device, retrieving the
configuration file with the logging object from a remote source
based on the location, wherein the configuration file identifies
at least one of the plurality of user interactions to capture;
reading the configuration file with the logging object to
determine the at least one of the plurality of user interactions to
capture;
adding event handlers to a plurality of page elements
within the plurality of web pages to monitor the at least one of
the plurality of user interactions as specified in the
configuration file with the logging object in response to reading
the configuration file; and
determining a plurality of user behaviors according to the
at least one of the plurality of user interactions with the at least
one of the plurality of page elements on the at least one
plurality of web pages captured by the event handlers as
identified by the configuration file.
21. A method for providing a configurable logging platform,
the method comprising:
retrieving a web page, wherein the web page comprises a
logging object and specifies a location of a configuration file
for operating the logging object;
2
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
upon rendering the web page, retrieving a configuration
file by the logging object from a remote location, the
configuration file specifying at least one user interaction with a
page element on the web page to be captured by event handlers;
adding the event handlers within at least one of the page
elements to monitor the at least one user interactions with one
of the page elements as specified in the configuration file by the
logging object;
determining a plurality of user behaviors according to the
user interactions with the at least one of the page elements on
the web page;
logging the plurality of user behaviors associated with
the web page determined by the captured user interactions; and
sending the logged plurality of user behaviors to a
logging server.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21—24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by1 Russell (US 2002/0099818 Al; published July 25, 2002).
Final Act. 2—7.2
The Examiner rejected claims 1—12, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Russell and Hichwa (US 6,507,833 Bl; issued
Jan. 14, 2003). Final Act. 7—15.
1 Although the Examiner indicates that claims 21—24 and 27 are
“unpatentable by” Russell under § 102(b) (Final Act. 2), these claims are
nonetheless anticipated by Russell.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
December 11, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 13, 2016
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 6, 2016
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed February 6, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Russell, Hichwa, and Sharma (US 2009/0049052 Al;
published Feb. 19,2009). Final Act. 16.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Russell discloses every recited element of
independent claim 21 including retrieving a web page with a “logging
object,” namely the embedded JavaScript code in paragraphs 77 to 79. Final
Act. 2-4; Ans. 3—4, 6. According to the Examiner, Russell teaches that upon
rendering the web page, the logging object retrieves a “configuration file”
(“browser-monitor.js”) from a remote location, namely “code.sea.data
center.com” specified in the embedded JavaScript code. Final Act. 3; Ans.
4-6.
Appellant argues, among other things, that Russell’s hypertext markup
language (HTML) statement cannot be the recited logging object, and the
“browser-monitor.js” file cannot be the configuration file that the logging
object retrieves from a remote location as claimed. App. Br. 16—20; Reply
Br. 2-4. Although Appellant acknowledges that Russell’s JavaScript code
“browser-monitor.js” checks whether a server monitor cookie is present, the
cookie determines what actions the browser monitor performs. Reply Br. 4.
As such, Appellant contends that “browser-monitor.js” lacks logging actions
asserted by the Examiner. Id.
4
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that Russell discloses a logging object that retrieves a configuration file from
a remote location upon rendering a web page?
ANALYSIS
Claims 21—24
We begin by construing the term “logging object.” The Specification
does not define the term “logging object,” unlike other terms whose concrete
definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 138
(defining “modulated data signal” and “computer readable media”).
Nevertheless, the Specification explains that monitored web pages may
comprise an embedded logging object that may be in JavaScript. Spec. 8,
15. When a page is rendered, the logging object (1) retrieves a remote
configuration file, and (2) adds event handlers to page elements to capture,
store, and send user behaviors with those elements to a remote logging
database. Id.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
“logging object,” it is not limiting. We, therefore, construe the term with its
plain meaning in the art. The term “object” is defined, quite broadly, as “a
data item that has procedures associated with it.” Douglas Downing et al.,
Barron’s Dictionary of Computer & Internet Terms 336 (10th ed.
2009). Another computer dictionary also defines the term “object” broadly
as “any data element that is manipulated by a program, such as a variable, an
array, a record, or a file.” Dick Pountain, The Penguin Concise
Dictionary of Computing 302 (2003).
5
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping the
recited “logging object” to Russell’s JavaScript code in paragraphs 77 to 79.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 3—4, 6. First, this code pertains to logging, namely in
connection with a browser monitor. See Russell ]Hf 76—81. Second, this
code reasonably corresponds to an “object,” namely a data item that has
associated procedures, or is manipulated by a program. See id. To the
extent that Appellant contends that Russell’s JavaScript code somehow
cannot constitute a “logging object” under the term’s broadest reasonable
interpretation (see App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 2—3), there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to support such an assertion apart from attorney
argument that has little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424
F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for
evidence.”).
Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s finding that Russell’s code­
based “logging object” retrieves a “configuration file,” named “browser-
monitor.js,” from a remote location, namely “code.sea.data center.com,”
specified in the referenced Uniform Resource Focator (URF) in the
embedded JavaScript code. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4—6. As Russell explains in
paragraph 80, the file “browser-monitor.js” is loaded from the web site
named “code.sea.data center.com.” By loading this file upon rendering the
web page containing the associated JavaScript in paragraphs 77 to 79,
Russell’s code-based logging object effectively retrieves a configuration file
named “browser-monitor.js” from a remote location, namely the
“code.sea.data center.com” web site. The disputed logging object limitation
is, therefore, fully met by Russell. Appellant’s arguments to the contrary
6
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
(App. Br. 16—20; Reply Br. 2-4) are unavailing and not commensurate with
the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claims 22—24 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 27
For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 27 reciting, in pertinent part, in response to rendering the
web page, retrieving the configuration file from a remote location, where the
file identifies at least one of the user interactions to capture. Although
Appellant’s arguments are similar to those raised in connection with claim
21, Appellant adds that the Examiner’s mapping of the “logging object”
recited in claim 27 ostensibly contradicts the Examiner’s interpretation
regarding claim 21. See App. Br. 20-23.
The Examiner, however, indicates that the rationale and reasoning for
claim 21 applies to claim 27. Ans. 7. Therefore, because we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, we are
likewise unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 for
similar reasons.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER RUSSELL AND HICHWA
The Examiner finds that Russell discloses every recited element of
independent claim 1 except for (1) determining that an embedded logging
object is supported by at least one client device responsive to rendering at
least one web page, and (2) retrieving a configuration file with the logging
object from a remote source responsive to determining the embedded
7
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
logging object is supported by the client device. Final Act. 7—10; Ans. 7—9.
The Examiner, however, cites Hichwa’s determining whether client devices
support JavaScript in connection with customizing generated display pages
in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. See id. The
Examiner reasons that the combined Russell/Hichwa system would
determine if the client supports the embedded JavaScript logging object,
and, if so, retrieve the associated configuration file. Final Act. 10; Ans. 7.
Appellant reiterates Russell’s alleged shortcomings regarding the
recited logging object and its configuration file retrieval functionality. App.
Br. 23—29. Appellant, however, adds that Hichwa’s creating web pages
dynamically does not teach or suggest embedding logging objects in web
pages, let alone determining that these embedded objects are supported by at
least one client device responsive to rendering a web page as claimed. App.
Br. 29-30.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Russell and Hichwa collectively would have taught or suggested (1)
determining that an embedded logging object is supported by at least one
client device responsive to rendering the recited at least one web page, and
(2) retrieving a configuration file with the logging object from a remote
source responsive to determining the embedded logging object is supported
by the client device?
8
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. First,
Appellant’s arguments regarding Russell’s alleged shortcomings in
connection with the recited logging object and its configuration file retrieval
functionality (App. Br. 23—29) are unpersuasive for the reasons noted
previously.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Hichwa
at least to the extent that Hichwa suggests that determining whether a client
can support a JavaScript-based object embedded in a web page in column 8,
line 51 to column 9, line 7, and that providing such a determination in
connection with Russell’s embedded JavaScript logging object would have
been obvious. Ans. 7.
To be sure, Hichwa’s client-based determination occurs before pages
are generated so that pages generated based on this determination are
tailored to clients’ particular capabilities (e.g., whether they can support
JavaScript). See Hichwa col. 8,1. 51 — col. 9,1. 7. But the Examiner’s
rejection is not based solely on Hichwa, but rather Russell and Hichwa
collectively.
That is, we see no reason why Hichwa’s fundamental teaching of
determining whether a client can support JavaScript embedded in web pages
could not be applied to Russell’s web pages that likewise have embedded
JavaScript in paragraphs 77 to 79 as noted previously. Such an enhancement
would enable only those clients that can support JavaScript to implement the
associated functionality of the JavaScript-based logging object when the
page is rendered—a predictable result.
9
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
In fact, Russell alone at least suggests as much in that only those
clients that can support embedded JavaScript can implement the embedded
JavaScript-based logging object in paragraphs 77 to 79 when the page
containing that object is rendered by a browser. That is, the very act of a
client device rendering a web page with this embedded JavaScript would
effectively determine that the associated JavaScript-based logging object is
supported by that device and, if so, implement the associated functionality
by, among other things, retrieving the associated configuration file,
“bro wser-monitor.j s. ”
Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner’s additional reliance on
Hichwa at least to the extent that it teaches determining a client device’s
support for JavaScript explicitly, and that providing such a determination in
connection with Russell’s JavaScript-based system would have been
obvious. Ans. 7—9. That Hichwa generates pages dynamically as Appellant
indicates (App. Br. 29—30) is of no consequence here, for JavaScript-based
objects can be embedded in web pages regardless of how the pages are
generated—dynamically or otherwise. Accord Ans. 8 (noting this point).
And when those pages are rendered, the Russell/Hichwa system would
effectively determine that the client supports the embedded JavaScript-based
logging object and, if so, retrieve the associated configuration file as
claimed. Appellant’s arguments regarding Hichwa’s individual
shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 29—30) do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
10
Appeal 2017-005175
Application 12/492,704
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2—12, 25, and 26 not argued separately with
particularity.3
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 13.
Final Act. 16. Because this rejection is not argued separately with
particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons
previously discussed.4
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 21—24 and 27 under
§ 102, and (2) claims 1—13, 25, and 26 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—13 and 21—27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 Although Appellant also argues that claim 21 is not obvious over Russell
and Hichwa (App. Br. 30-35), the claim was not so rejected. See Final Act,
7—15. Accord Ans. 9 (noting this point).
4 Although Appellant also argues that claim 1 is not obvious over Russell,
Hichwa, and Sharma (App. Br. 36-42), the claim was not so rejected. See
Final Act. 16.
11