Ex Parte De Sio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

11230338 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GIUSEPPE DE SIO
____________

Appeal 2012-005355
Application 11/230,338
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–16. Claim 9 has been
cancelled (App. Br. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION

The invention relates to testing a web application (Spec. 2:1–2).
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of testing a distributed software application running in a
data processing system with at least one test client and at least one test
server, for each test client the method comprising:
Appeal 2012-005355
Application 11/230,338

2
according to a retrieved test case, an automation server
transmitting a request of opening a page stored on a corresponding
test server to an automation agent running on the test client,
the automation agent causing the loading of the page with the
addition of an automation component, the automation agent adding
the automation component to the page, the addition of the automation
component modifying the page,
the automation server transmitting a command for the page to
the automation agent,
the automation agent passing the command to the automation
component, and
the automation component causing the execution of the
command on the page,
wherein the automation component is used to simulate human
interaction with the page according to the test case.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–14, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Landan et al. (US 6,449,739 B1, issued
Sept. 10, 2002) (“Landan”), Rojewski et al. (US 2003/0164850 A1, pub.
Sept. 4, 2003) (“Rojewski”), and Guthrie (US 2002/0129064 A1, pub. Sept.
12, 2002) (Ans. 5).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Landan, Rojewski, Guthrie, and Morshed et al. (US
6,760,903 B1, issued July 6, 2004) (Ans. 17).

ISSUE
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of pending claims 1–8 and
10–16 is in error because various features required by the claims are not
taught by the applied references. (See App. Br. 10–22.) The dispositive
issue presented by these arguments is: did the Examiner err in finding the
Appeal 2012-005355
Application 11/230,338

3
combination of Landan, Rojewski, Guthrie, and Morshed teaches or suggests
the elements of claims 1–8 and 10–16?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments and contentions (App. Br.
10–22; Reply Br. 2–11) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations
(Ans. 5–37) regarding claims 1–8 and 10–16. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and explanations (Ans. 5–37) and adopt them as our own.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that:
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the
time of the invention that Rojewski’s automation component
receiving commands from an automation agent could
advantageously be combined with Landon’s automation
agent which passes commands to the page because it would
improve test cases for simulating user actions and monitoring
server responses (Landan column 6 line 66 through column 7
line 12) by using common internet technologies that are
not dependent on a proprietary technology (Rojewski paragraph
0042) for testing a system (Rojewski paragraph 0004).

(Ans. 26) (emphasis in original).
Appellant argues Landan does not modify code of a page to be loaded
(App. Br. 17) and that Landan’s agent has to provide the functionality of
adding code or data to a page and then load the modified page (Reply Br. 3).
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions because the Examiner rejects
claim 1 over the combined teachings of Landan, Rojewski, and Guthrie, and
what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Appeal 2012-005355
Application 11/230,338

4
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant does not otherwise persuasively point to errors in the
substance of the Examiner’s reasoning in the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, or
15. Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or
has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed
for patentability of claim 1, claims 4, 6–8, 10–14, and 16 fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION

We affirm the rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv