Ex Parte Fish et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 12, 2010

10313270 (B.P.A.I. May. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS R. FISH, CALE T. RATH, and DAVID A. WALL
____________________

Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 12, 2010
____________________

Before: JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-22, and 24-38. Claims 11, 15, and 23
have been canceled (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2008).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
for processing error information in web environments (Spec. 1, [0001]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method of processing error information in a Web
environment, comprising:

issuing a request for Web content;

receiving, in response to the request, a Web based
electronic document comprising (i) visible output comprising at
least a portion of the Web content requested and (ii) at least one
hidden field containing error information generated in response
to an error occurring during processing of the request;

displaying the visible output while keeping the error
information hidden; and then

displaying the error information in response to an explicit
request to view the error information.

Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

3
References
Faisai Khan, Exception Handling in JSP Pages, July, 24, 2001, http://www.
stardeveloper.com/articles/display.html?article-2001072401 &page= 1
(“Khan”).
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-10,112, 13, 21, 22, 24-35, 37, and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Khan.
Claims 3, 14, 16-20, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Khan.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4-13, 21, 22, 24-35, 37, and 38 on the
basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 11-14). We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2, 4-13, 21, 22, 24-35,
37, and 38 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. Further,
Appellants argue independent claim 14 and dependent claims 3, 16-20, and
36 based on arguments made with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 14-15).
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 21, 22, 24-35, 37 and 38
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Khan because
Khan does not teach (1) issuing a request for Web content and (2) receiving,

1 Although the Examiner includes claim 11 in this rejection, we consider this
a typographical error as claim 11 is canceled as acknowledged by both the
Examiner and Appellants. (See Final Rejection 2, §2; App. Br. 5).
Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

4
in response to the request, a Web-based electronic document comprising
visible output comprising at least a portion of the Web content requested
(App. Br. 11-12). Specifically, Appellants argue Khan discloses running a
test by entering two different inputs: age and any value other than integer
value in the ‘input field Form’ (id. at 12). Appellants argue following this
test enables the user to learn how the error page method works in light of the
disclosed examples, but does not disclose issuing a request for web content
(id.).
Further, Appellants contend “Web content,” according to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, “is a textual, visual, or aural content that is
encountered as part of the user experience on [the] Web” (App. Br. 13).
Appellants argue that even if the age entered by a user (i.e., living person) is
considered “content,” Khan still fails to teach a request for Web content
because a person is not a Web application (id.).
Additionally, Appellants argue Kahn discloses only proper values
entered by a user are printed on the screen (id.). If an error occurs, an error
message is displayed and no part of the entered value is displayed (id).
Therefore, according to Appellants, since the error message is displayed
only when an error exception occurs, it could not have been requested by the
user (App. Br. 14).
The Examiner additionally finds Appellants’ Specification does not
define web content and thus concludes “web content is any information
received over the Web” (Ans. 11-12). Further, the Examiner finds Kahn
teaches JSP which generates web sites in response to web requests and JSP
files that provide content of web pages in a web site (id. at 12).
Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

5
Further, the Examiner finds that after the user enters input in the input
field of the form, the output displayed is Web content, whether or not the
output displayed is (1) “Your age is: 24 years” or (2) the error message.
Additionally, the Examiner finds “the claim language used in the claims is
broad[,] and therefore[,] it is reasonable to interpret that the portion of the
Web content requested can be the error message” (id. at 14).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Khan discloses
(1) issuing a request for Web content, and (2) receiving, in response to the
request, a Web based electronic document comprising visible output
comprising at least a portion of the Web content requested?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Khan Reference
(1) Khan describes how to catch exceptional events in a JSP
(JavaServer Pages) page to display a more useful message to the user (pg. 1,
§ “Overview”).
(2) In Khan, if a user enters a non-integer value or does not enter
any value in the Form.html page that is expecting an age in the input field,
the error will be handled by the ExceptionHandler.jsp JSP page (pg. 3 and
Code reproduced as Fig. 1 below).
Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

6

Figure 1 illustrates code for the ExceptionHandler.jsp page
(3) When an error occurs, an exception message will be displayed
(pg. 3). The stack trace information for debugging can be put inside HTML
comment tags, so that a user only sees a useful message and the sysadmin
(system administrator) and developers can see the full stack trace
information (pg. 3). Further, if the user clicks View-> Source, while on
Internet Explorer, the complete exception stack trace written will be shown
(page 4).
Definitions
(4) JSP is short for JavaServer Pages, and is a “technology created
by Sun Microsystems to enable development of platform-independent Web-
based applications.” JSP utilizes HTML and XML tags, and Java scriplets
to help Web site developers create cross-platform programs. JSP scriplets
Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

7
run on the server, not in the Web browser, and generate dynamic content on
Web pages. (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 297 (5th ed. 2002)).
(5) An exception, in programming, is “a problem or change in
conditions that causes the microprocessor to stop what it is doing and handle
the situation in a separate routine” (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 199
(5th ed. 2002)).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation." Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving the claims their broadest
reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.

Appeal 2009-004833
Application 10/313,270

8
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Web content is any information
received over the Web as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Additionally, we find that the request issued does not have to
come from a user, as claim 1 does not recite that a “user” issues a request for
Web content.
In light of this, we further find that Kahn discloses that after a user
enters a non-integer value for the user’s age, a request is issued to the
ExceptionHandler.jsp pages to handle the error (FF 2). Further, we adopt
the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art that a request to the ExceptionHandler.jsp pages is a request to
receive Web content, i.e., information regarding the error, as jsp pages
generate dynamic web content on Web pages (FF 3 and App. Br. 12).
Therefore, when a request is issued to the ExceptionHandler.jsp pages, the
request is for Web content. Accordingly, we find Khan discloses “issuing a
request for Web content.”
Further, we find Khan discloses that in response to the request to
generate an exception message, a page is shown that displays the exception
message and stack trace information put inside HTML