Ex Parte Conboy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2013

11114796 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)

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.
11/114,796 04/26/2005 Craig Conboy CAM920075009US2_086 2043
51835 7590 12/23/2013
IBM Lotus & Rational SW
c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP
5 Mount Royal Avenue
Mount Royal Office Park
Marlborough, MA 01752
EXAMINER
EHICHIOYA, IRETE FRED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CRAIG CONBOY, ANDREW ROLLESTON,
and DEREK McDOUGALL
___________

Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-17.
Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a system and method for analyzing Web
sites and similar data structures. Specification 1.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method of Web site analysis comprising the steps of:
establishing parameters for searching one or more non-
compliant Web pages within a Web site and performing an
analysis of the one or more Web pages, the parameters
including customized search rules formatted according to a
defined language specification and including logical tests and
data processing to be performed within the analysis of the one
or more web pages;
identifying the one or more non-compliant Web pages
within the Web site, the identifying the one or more non-
compliant Web pages based on the parameters;
searching the one or more Web pages using the
parameters;
analyzing the one or more Web pages to identify
structure problems relating to the placement of the one or more
Web pages within the Web site and content problems with the
one or more Web pages, and collect data, including executing
said customized search rules including executing the logical
tests and data processing on the one or more Web pages; and
generating a report on said analysis of the one or more Web
pages within the Web site.
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Braden-Harder (U.S. Patent Number 5,933,822;
issued August 3, 1999) and Leshem (U.S. Patent Number 5,870,559; issued
February 9, 1999). Answer 3-11.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Braden-Harder, Leshem, and Chau (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2003/0014397 A1; published January 16,
2003). Answer 11-13.

Issue
Do Braden-Harder, Leshem, and Chau, either alone or in combination,
disclose a system and method for analyzing Web pages within a Web site for
structural and content anomalies?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner
mistakenly equates Braden-Harder’s disclosure of “‘documents that produce
no matches are eliminated from further consideration’ whereas ones ‘that
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

4
contain one logical match are retained’” with the “analyzing the one or more
Web pages to identify structure problems relating to the placement of the
one or more Web pages within the Web site and content problems with the
one or more Web pages,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 7; see Answer
5. As Appellants concede, “Identifying documents that match a search
query and ignoring ones that do not mach [sic] is the same as identifying
Web pages with content problems.” Appeal Brief 7.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s reliance upon Leshem to
disclose discovering “structure problems” is problematic because the
Examiner’s statement that, “‘a broken hyperlink would be a problem related
to the placement of the web page within a website’” is not accurate. Appeal
Brief 7-8; see Final Rejection 2.
However, the Examiner supports his position by reasoning that, “In a
website, the placement of a web site is all virtual and is based solely on the
hyperlinks between various pages.” Final Rejection 2.
According to the Examiner:
Appellant never clearly defines (or even bounds) what type of
problem in a website would be classified as a “structure”
problem versus a “content” problem. As content problems can
simply be the inclusion or exclusion of a word or term from a
webpage, performing a search of the webpages can help
determine what should be added or removed - content
problems. The Examiner maintains that a “broken link” is a
type “structure” problem because links determine the location
of a webpage inside a website (i.e. a place in the website cloud).
Appellant argues that a “broken link” is a “content” problem.
As there is no clear delineation between these terms, the
Examiner must agree that a broken link can indicate a content
problem. As both are required in the claim language and no
requirement that these problems are separate, finding a broken
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

5
link can indicate a structure and a content problem. Each of
these is a reasonable interpretation of the claim language and
the references provided.

Answer 13-14.
In response to the Examiner’s findings, Appellants argue in the Reply
Brief that:
As recited in the claimed method and system, there is a
clear distinction between the claimed “structure problems” and
“content problems.” Appellants disagree that “finding a broken
link can indicate a structure and a content problem.”
(Examiner’s Answer, page 14) The language of the claimed
method and system specifically recite “structure problems
relating to the placement of the one or more Web pages within
the Web site” and content problems are “with the one or more
web pages.” Therefore, a “broken link” cannot be construed to
be both a structure and a content problem in light of the
language recited in the claims.

Reply Brief 5.
Appellants identify pages 21-23 of the Specification for providing
support for the “structure” and “content” problem limitations recited in
claim 1. Appeal Brief 3.
Reviewing Appellants’ identified Specification pages, we see
language defining content issues or problems (Specification 21-23);
however, the language for defining structural problems is not readily
apparent. Paragraph [0140] of the Specification states, “The content issues
and Web page characteristics may include the following.” The following
Specification paragraphs [0141-0167] describe different types of content
problems without any mention of structural problems.
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

6
The Examiner can interpret the claims broadly within reason however
he must take into account any definitions given in the Specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification is
silent in defining structural problems separately from content problems,
therefore, the Examiner’s broader interpretation of the recited “structure
problems” (claim 1) is reasonable in view of the Specification. ’. See
Specification 21-23. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings
that the claimed content/structure problems are taught or suggested by the
combination of Braden-Harder and Leshem.
Appellants then argue that Braden-Harder does not identify non-
compliant Web pages using parameters that include search rules formatted to
a defined language because
[Braden-Harder’s] processing the natural language of the search
query and of the output document set in order to identify the
logical form of the semantic relationships of a linguistic phrase
therein implies that the search query is not bound by any rules
and thus not on any “defined language” as recited in claims 1
and 17.

Appeal Brief 6 (citation omitted).
We do not find Appellants’ argument to be persuasive because the
claimed “defined language specification” reads upon Braden-Harder’s
employment of natural language because the rudimentary nature of language
is structure. Without such structure, language is not operational or relevant.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s “stated motivation is
nothing more than an unsupported conclusory or common sense statement,
which is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” Appeal
Brief 9. Appellants further argue that the Examiner does not provide support
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

7
for his motivation statement. Id. We do not find Appellants’ argument to be
persuasive.
Both Braden-Harder and Leshem are directed to Web-related
inventions. See Appeal Brief 8; see also Answer 14.
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor
was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent
to the problem based on the judgment of a person having
ordinary skill in the art.

In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The
claimed invention is also based upon Web-related technology, the same as in
both Braden-Harder and Leshem. Because the cited references are in the
same field of Appellants’ endeavor, we find the references are analogous art
to Appellants’ claimed invention.
Our reviewing court guides that the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88; In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. We find the Examiner’s motivation statement
articulates sufficient reasoning having a rational underpinning to support the
obviousness conclusion. See Answer 5-6.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claim 1,
as well as independent claim 17 that is commensurate in scope. Further, we
Appeal 2011-006524
Application 11/114,796

8
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4-16 that were
not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-17 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc