Ex Parte Error et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2010

10609008 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRETT ERROR and JOHN PESTANA
____________________

Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,0081
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 14, 2010
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed June 27, 2003. The Appellants claim the benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of provisional application 60/393,002, filed June 28, 2002.
The real party in interest is Omniture, Inc.
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 12-21, 33-42,
and 54-63 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-11, 22-32, and 43-53 are cancelled.

We reverse.

The Appellants’ invention relates to a method for collecting, filtering,
and analyzing site path data for website users to assist website administrators
in understanding and analyzing how data is presented to users. (See Spec.
¶¶ [0010] and [0012].) In the words of the Appellants:
The website administrator can identify a series of
nodes, or web pages, in a site as checkpoints, and
can configure the system of the invention to
provide information as to a particular visitation
path through the checkpoints. The system then
presents usage statistics for the specified visitation
path. . . . [T]he system is able to recognize a
visitation path among checkpoints, regardless of
whether the user visits other nodes in the course of
the checkpoint traversal. Thus, even if a user takes
“side trips” through other web pages that are not
designated as checkpoints, the present invention is
able to provide meaningful site path analysis with
respect to those nodes that are designated as
checkpoints.
(Spec. ¶ [0010]).

2
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

Claim 12 is exemplary:
12. A computer-implemented method for
capturing and presenting node sequence data,
comprising:

receiving input designating a target path
comprising a sequence of nodes, the target path
further comprising at least one wild card;

retrieving, from a stored log, a plurality of
records comprising node sequence data;

filtering the retrieved records to identify
records corresponding to node sequences that
match the target path; and

outputting a report based on the identified
records.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kasriel US 2003/0128231 A1 Jul. 10, 2003
(filed on Apr. 22, 2002)

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 12-21, 33-42, and 54-63 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for being anticipated by Kasriel.

The Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not
anticipated by Kasriel because Kasriel fails to teach the claimed “wild card”
3
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

(App. Br. 6, middle). The Examiner contends that each of the claims is
properly rejected (Ans. 8, bottom).
The rejection will be reviewed in the order argued by the Appellants.
The claims are grouped as per the Appellants’ Brief. Only those arguments
actually made by the Appellants have been considered in this opinion.
Arguments that the Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue
specifically turns on whether Kasriel teaches the claimed “wild card.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Disclosure
1. The Appellants have invented a method, system, and program product for
analyzing and filtering website visitation paths. (See claims 12, 33, and
54; Spec. ¶¶ [0010] and [0012].) A target path is a path that a website
administrator identifies as a path of interest (Spec. ¶ [0044]). The
method involves specifying a target path using a “wild card.” (See claim
1.) Wild cards match any webpage (i.e., a “node”) along the target path
(Spec. ¶ [0048]).
4
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

Kasriel
2. The Kasriel reference teaches a method of tracking website usage. (See
¶ [0019].) The method includes tracking usage from an entry point of a
website (e.g., webpage A, B, or C). (See ¶ [0035].)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006).

“It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . .” In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants present two arguments for our review.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 12 to 21, 33 to 42, and 54 to 63
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) [R1]

First, the Appellants argue:
[T]he wild cards claimed herein provide a much
greater degree of flexibility in specifying a
particular path to be matched, and in designating
5
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

points along the path where tangential pages may
or may not appear while still resulting in a match.
Nowhere in Kasriel is any such matching
technique taught or suggested, nor is there any hint
of any other technique that would provide as
robust a pattern-matching capability.

(App. Br. 6, middle) (Emphasis added).

In reply, the Examiner states in the Answer that Kasriel teaches the
concept of a wild card where the reference describes an example of tracking
website usage (Ans. 6, bottom). The Examiner appears to equate a wild card
with an exemplary website (i.e., “yahoo.com”) having multiple pages that
may be visited from an entry point. (See Ans. 7, middle to bottom; Kasriel,
¶ [0035].)
We select claim 12 as exemplary. We carefully reviewed the
Examiner’s Answer, the cited portions of Kasriel, and indeed the entire
reference. We find that the Examiner has pointed to nothing in particular in
Kasriel that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as the
claimed “wild card” at the time the invention was made. (See Ans. 6,
bottom to 8, middle.)
We find that the Appellants’ claimed invention analyzes and filters
website visitation paths (FF#1). A target path is a path that a website
administrator identifies as a path of interest (id.). The method involves
specifying a target path using a “wild card” (id.). Wild cards match any
page (i.e., a “node”) along the target path (id.). In contrast, the Kasriel
reference merely teaches a method of tracking website usage, such that the
method tracks usage from an entry point of a website (e.g., webpage A, B, or
C) (FF#2). Upon reviewing Kasriel and the Examiner’s “Response to
6
Appeal 2009-001735
Application 10/609,008

Arguments,” we decline to find that Kasriel has a particular teaching for the
Appellants’ claimed “wild card.” Accordingly, we find error in the
Examiner’s analysis of claim 12.
Claims 13-21, 33-42, and 54-63 stand with exemplary claim 12.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-21, 33-42, and 54-63.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-21, 33-42, and 54-63 is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb
RAUBVOGEL LAW OFFICE
820 LAKEVIEW WAY
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062
7