Ex Parte Haeuptle

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2009

09858634 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL HAEUPTLE
_____________

Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634
Technology Center 2100
______________

Decided: 1 March 24, 2009
_______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a
civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided
date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from
(Continued on next page.)
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention is best understood by considering the on-line
“shopping cart” example described in the Specification, which explains:
Usually, providers want to use a predefined transaction to verify
the operation, for example, the transaction of a customer using
the shopping cart. This transaction can be recorded and then
continuously replayed at a specific interval. Using this
recorded transaction, availability and performance
measurements can be forwarded to, for example, a management
system that can present the data to the provider. However, to
record and playback these predefined transactions, prior
solutions use a subset of these transactions in which the URLs
are static.
Specification [0006].2
For static URLs, the address to which the hyperlink points is always
the same. Id. at [0004]. For example, the URL
http://www.shopping.hp.com/check-out.htm always remains the same,
because this is a static URL. Id. For dynamic URLs, a unique session

the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
2 References to paragraph numbers are to the Application as filed
rather than to the corresponding Application Publication.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

3
identifier is encoded in the address. Id. A dynamic URL would look like
the following: http://www.shopping.hp.com/23134/check-out.htm. Id.
When a user accesses the main page, all URLs pointing to other pages are
generated dynamically with the session identifier embedded in the URL. Id.
at [0005]. From that point on, all following Web pages will contain this
number until, for example, the session expires. Id. A session identifier is
typically not re-used, and a new session identifier is generated every time the
user visits the Web site. Id.
Appellant’s invention “provide[s] a system and method which can
record and playback transactions having multiple, dynamic URLs.’ Id. at
[0007].
Figure 2 shows the source code for rendering a portion of a web page
(not shown). Id. at [0020]. This web page is referred to as the “first
electronic document” in the Specification (e.g., [0008]) and in claims 1
and 9. The source code includes an anchor 200 containing a dynamic URL
205, specified by a “href” designation (id. at [0020]), that leads to a “second
electronic document.” Id. at [0008]. The URL is dynamic because it
contains unique session identifiers “1874524129.0980984891” and
“gcalkclgfjdhbfdnckgcfjgdgmg.” Id. at [0020].
Anchor 200 additionally contains the text “desktops,” which is
separate from the URL and is the only part of the anchor that will be
displayed to the user. Id. That is, this anchor text, which is referred to in the
Application (e.g., Fig. 1A) as a “navigation point” and recited in the claims
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

4
as a “text string in an anchor,” is typically used as a hyperlink that can be
designated (e.g., clicked upon) by the user to navigate to a specific Web
page. Id. This anchor text does not change dynamically. Id. at [0021].
Figure 1A is reproduced below.

Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

5
Figure 1A is described as “a flowchart showing steps for simulating a
dynamic link between electronic documents located in a computer network
to record a user's selection of the dynamic link.” Id. at [0011].
Selecting a first dynamic link (step 105) refers to identifying the first
dynamic link in a rendered electronic document in any manner, such as, for
example, clicking on the first dynamic link (id. at [0015]), e.g., the hyperlink
“desktops.”
In step 110, the set of instructions (Fig. 2) that is used to render the
first electronic document is examined to locate the instructions or source
code (anchor 200) that corresponds to the selected first dynamic link. Id at
[0018]-[0020].
In step 115, the anchor text (e.g., “desktops”) is identified as the
navigation point identifying the first dynamic link (i.e., URL 205). Id. at
[0021]-[0022]. This anchor text does not include URL 205.
In step 120, the navigation point (i.e., “desktops”) is stored.
Figure 1B is reproduced below.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

6

Figure 1B is described as “a flowchart showing steps for simulating a
dynamic link between electronic documents located in a computer network
to play back a user's selection of the dynamic link.” Id. at [0012].
In step 125, the navigation point (e.g., “desktops”) associated with the
first dynamic link is retrieved. Id. at [0025].
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

7
In step 130, the navigation point is located in a second set of
instructions used to render a version of the first electronic document that has
been updated to include a second dynamic link. Id. at [0026]. The first
electronic document and the updated version of the first electronic document
are identical except for the unique, generated session identifiers contained in
the dynamic links, or for any other difference specified by the user. Id. The
second set of instructions is parsed or scanned to determine the location of
the navigation point (e.g., “desktops”). Id.
In step 135, the second dynamic link (i.e., URL) corresponding to the
navigation point can be extracted from the second set of instructions. Id. at
[0027].
In step 140, the second dynamic link can be used to navigate from the
first electronic document to the second electronic document. Id.
For each electronic document traversed, steps 125 through 140 can be
repeated to play back the recorded transactions. Id.

B. The claims
The independent claims are claims 1 and 9, of which claim 1 reads:
1. A method for simulating a dynamic link between
electronic documents located in a computer network,
comprising the steps of:
selecting a first dynamic link that leads from a first
electronic document to a second electronic document based on a
Uniform Resource Locator (URL);
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

8
locating, within a first set of instructions used to render
the first electronic document, a position of the first dynamic
link;
identifying, in the first set of instructions, a text string in
an anchor associated with the first dynamic link but not
containing the first dynamic link;
storing the text string in an anchor to record a transaction
based on dynamic URLs; and
retrieving the stored text string in an anchor to simulate
the first dynamic link and play back the recorded transaction.
Claims App. 1.
Claim 9 reads:
9. A system for simulating a dynamic link between
electronic documents located in a computer network,
comprising:
a memory that stores steps used to:
locate, within a first set of instructions used to
render a first electronic document, a position of a
first dynamic link that leads from the first
electronic document to a second electronic
document based on a Uniform Resource Locator
(URL),
store at least one text string in an anchor that is
associated with the first dynamic link but not
containing the first dynamic link, and
retrieve the at least one text string in an anchor
from storage to simulate the first dynamic link; and
a processor for accessing the memory and executing the
steps to record at least one transaction based on a dynamic URL
and replay the at least one recorded transaction.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

9
Claims App. 2 (indenting modified). We understand the phrase “a memory
that stores steps” in claim 9 to mean “a memory that stores information
defining steps.”

C. The references and rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Hodson et al. (Hodson) US 2002/0052806 A1 May 2, 2002
Kim et al. (Kim) US 2002/0129014 A1 Sep. 12, 2002
Steele et al. (Steel) US 2003/0191737 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
Judson US 6,185,586 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Nielsen US 6,199,071 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
Hunt et al. (Hunt) US 6,223,215 B1 Apr. 24, 2001
Li US 6,725,227 B1 Apr. 20, 2004
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Hodson in view of Kim and Nielsen.
Answer 5.
Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness
over Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Steele. Id. at 9.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness
over Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Hunt. Id. at 11.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Judson. Id. at 12.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

10
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Li. Id. at 13.
Appellant argues only the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9.
Furthermore, inasmuch as Appellant specifically argues the claim language
of only claim 1 (e.g., Br. 5), we elect that claim for consideration. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

THE ISSUES
Appellant has the burden to show reversible error by the Examiner in
maintaining the rejection. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The issues before us, which reflect Appellant’s contentions (explained
infra), are:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Nielsen discloses identifying
and storing a “text string in an anchor”?
(2) Did the Examiner establish motivation for combining the
teachings of Hodson and Kim?

Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

11
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING HODSON
Hodson discloses an integrated electronic shopping cart system and
method wherein an integrated shopping cart functionality is provided on a
first website so that products/services from different affiliated websites can
be integrated into the shopping cart at the first website and the e-commerce
functionality of the first website can be utilized to purchase the selected
products/services. Hodson at [0019].
The Examiner reads some of the limitations of claim 1 on paragraphs
[0135], [0136], [0138], and [0139] of Hodson, while acknowledging that
Hodson fails to disclose several claim limitations. Answer 5. The cited
paragraphs in Hodson describe Figure 13, which is reproduced below.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

12

Figure 13 is a schematic diagram illustrating the operation of the
integrated shopping cart system. Hodson at [0036]. A user accessing a first
website 160 (hosted, for example, by a first server 31) may be presented
with a dynamic link, such as a URL link, to an affiliated website 162
(hosted, for example, by an affiliated server 31n in communication with the
first server). Id. at [0136].
The Examiner has not provided a detailed explanation of which claim
language reads on Figure 13. Comparing claim 1 to this figure, we assume
the Examiner is reading the recited “first electronic document” on a web
page at first website 160 that includes a dynamic URL link to a web page at
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

13
the affiliated website 162, is reading the “second electronic document” on
the web page at affiliated web site 162, and is reading the first step of
“selecting a first dynamic link that leads from a first electronic document to
a second electronic document based on a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)”
(claim 1) on the user’s action of clicking on the hyperlink associated with
the dynamic URL link.
The Examiner relies on Nielsen and Kim to cure several
acknowledged deficiencies in Hodson.

DID THE EXAMINER ERR IN FINDING THAT NIELEN DISCLOSES
IDENTIFYING AND STORING A “TEXT STRING IN AN ANCHOR”?
The first deficiency acknowledged by the Examiner and argued by
Appellant is that “Hodson . . . does not disclose expressly the step of
identifying, in the first set of instructions, a text string in an anchor
associated with the first dynamic link and storing this text string.” Answer
6. At page 14 of the Answer, the Examiner further explained that “Hodson
does not teach expressly a text string in an anchor associated with the first
dynamic link and storing the text string (emphasis added).” To remedy this
deficiency, the Examiner relies on column 6, lines 29-63 of Nielsen and
more particularly on what Nielsen refers to as a “reference text string.”
Nielsen discloses a method and apparatus for archiving hypertext
documents. Nielsen, col. 1, ll. 1-2. Nielsen’s Figure 1A is reproduced
below.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

14

Figure 1A illustrates a sample of HTML data as indicated by general
reference character 100. Id., col. 1, ll. 66-67.
Figure 1B is reproduced below.

Figure 1B illustrates a presentation 120 of the HTML data sample 100
generated by a browser application that has processed the HTML data within
the base document. Id., col. 2, ll. 16-19. The presentation 120 is similar
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

15
regardless of whether it is displayed on a computer display with active
hyperlinks or stored in an archival form such as a printed page. Id., col. 2,
ll. 20-22. That is, the prior-art archiving process “does not archive the
hyperlinks contained in the base document because the URLs contained in
the hyperlinks are not printed.” Id., col. 2, ll. 52-55. Nielsen’s method
includes the step of detecting the hyperlink definition within the hypertext
document and also includes the step of archiving a portion of the hyperlink
definition. Id., col. 3, ll. 20-24.
Figure 9B is reproduced below.

Figure 9B illustrates an archived hypertext page in accordance with
Nielsen’s invention that uses first and second footnotes 929 and 935 to
display the text of two different URLs and a third footnote 939 (“See note
#2”) that refers back to the second footnote because the second and third
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

16
URLs are the same.3 Id., col. 11, l. 58 to col. 12, l. 12, l. 6. As explained
below, the footnote 3 text “See note #2” is referred to by Nielsen as “a
reference text string.”
The column 6 passage cited by the Examiner describes Nielsen’s
Figure 4, which is reproduced below.

As noted by Appellant (Br. 5), Figure 4 shows a data structure 400
constructed when a hypertext page is archived to allow printing of
hyperlinked footnotes at user command. The first URL structure 403

3 Other embodiments employ embedded notes (Fig. 9A) and endnotes
(Fig. 9C) instead of footnotes.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

17
contains information about the first relevant hyperlink encountered in a
hypertext document. Id., col. 6, ll. 38-40. A “next URL pointer” field 405
contains a pointer to a second URL structure 407 or is NIL. Id., col. 6,
ll. 40-42. A “URL type” field 408 indicates whether a “URL/REF text” field
409 contains a URL text string or a reference text string. Id., col. 6, ll. 42-
44. The reference text string (e.g., “See note #2”) is a string of text that
refers to a URL text string, whereas a URL text string is the hyperlink's
URL. Id., col. 6, ll. 44-47. The URL text strings and reference text strings
stored in text fields 409 are printed as embedded notes, endnotes, or
footnotes during the printing process. Id., col. 10, ll. 55-60.
The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the reference text string of Nielson [sic] with the
system and method for simulating a dynamic link of Hodson,
providing the benefit of including a means for identifying the
contents of a URL string by accessing its reference value (See
Nielson, Column 6, lines 44-46).
Answer 15. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Nielsen is
misplaced for a number of reasons, including:
[T]he disclosure in the Nielson [sic] patent (col. 6, lines 44-46)
that a reference text string is a string of text that refers to a URL
text string 1) gives no hint of a dynamic URL, 2) does not relate
to an anchor associated with a dynamic link; and 3) would not
have resulted in simulating a first dynamic link and playing
back the recorded transaction.
Reply Br. 1. Argument 1 is unconvincing because the Examiner relies on
Hodson rather than Nielsen for a teaching of a dynamic URL.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

18
As for argument 2, to the extent Appellant is arguing that Nielsen fails
to describe a dynamic URL, the argument is unconvincing for the reasons
given above with respect to argument 1. However, to the extent Appellant is
arguing that Nielsen’s reference text string (e.g., “See note #2”) is not “a text
string in anchor” in a first set of instructions, as recited in claim 1, Appellant
is clearly correct. We therefore agree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred in relying on Nielsen for such a teaching. However, the Examiner also
relies on Kim for such a teaching.

HAS THE EXAMINER ESTABLISHED MOTIVATION FOR
COMBINING THE TEACHINGS OF HODSON AND KIM?
The Examiner also found that “Hodson does not disclose expressly
that the text string in an anchor does not contain the first dynamic link”
(Answer 6) and relies on Kim for such a teaching. Id.
Kim’s invention relates to systems and methods for retrieving relevant
information from a large collection of information such as that on the
Internet and in particular the World Wide Web. Kim at [0001].
Figure 1 illustrates one embodiment of a search engine 10, which
includes a crawler 12 to fetch pages from the Web 13. Id. at [0023]. The
crawler 12 sends the fetched pages to a link extractor 16, which finds the
outbound links in the pages and sends the source and destination URLs of
the links to a URL management system (UMS) 18. Id. at [0024]. The UMS
18 assigns an identification number to each URL and maintains a database of
identification number and URL pairs, preferably in a hash table. Id.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

19
The Examiner (Answer 6) relies on the following discussion of anchor
texts and links:
The search engine 10 provides an indexing function in the
following manner. The anchor text and link extractor 22 writes
the source URL identification number, the destination URL
identification number, and associated anchor text to the anchor
text and link database 24. Anchor text is a section of text, an
icon, or other element in a page that links to another page. The
indexer 26 extracts the anchor text from the anchor text and link
database 24 and parses the keywords from the Web page
database 14 and generates an indexed database 28. The indexer
26 stores each keyword and its associated list of URL
identification numbers for fast retrieval.
Kim at [0025] (bolding omitted). The Examiner characterizes Kim as
“teach[ing] that an anchor text keyword and an associated URL link are
extracted and stored separately in a database, indicating by virtue of their
storage as separate fields in a database that the URL link is separate or not
contained within the anchor text” (Answer 15) and concluded that it would
have been obvious
to combine the separate storage of anchor text and URL link
data of Kim with the system and method for simulating a
dynamic link of Hodson, providing the benefit of allowing a
user to search specific keywords contained in an anchor text
and to retrieve one or more URL links associated with the
keywords in order to determine the relevance of a particular
web page (See Kim, Page 3, paragraph 0027).
Id. at 15-16. Appellant responded by arguing that “[t]he Kim et al.
publication does not relate to a dynamic link, and is not directed to solving
the problem of simulating a dynamic link by retrieving a stored text string in
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

20
an anchor, as recited in claim 1” (Reply Br. 2) and that therefore
[t]he Kim et al. publication would not have taught or suggested
identifying, in the first set of instructions, a text string in an
anchor associated with the first dynamic link but not containing
the first dynamic link; and storing the text string in an anchor to
record a transaction based on dynamic URLs, as recited in
claim 1, and as similarly featured in claim 9.
Id.
To the extent Appellant is arguing that claim 1 requires using the
retrieved “text string in an anchor” for the purpose of “simulat[ing] the first
dynamic link and play[ing] back the recorded transaction,” we do not agree.
In the claim 1 recitation of “retrieving the stored text string in an anchor to
simulate the first dynamic link and play back the recorded transaction,” the
language “to simulate the first dynamic link and play back the recorded
transaction” merely recites an intended use for the retrieved “text string in an
anchor.” The only function actually required by the “retrieving” step is to
retrieve the stored “text string in an anchor.” In fact, the function of
“simulat[ing] the first dynamic link and play[ing] back the recorded
transaction” appears to require the additional steps of using the stored and
retrieved “text string in an anchor” to extract and then execute a
corresponding dynamic URL in a set of instructions, as recited in claim 6,
which reads as follows and more particularly calls for locating the “text
string in an anchor” in a “second set of instructions” that includes a second
dynamic link:
6. The method of claim 1, comprising the steps of:
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

21
retrieving the text string in an anchor associated with the
first dynamic link;
locating the text string in an anchor in a second set of
instructions used to render a version of the first electronic
document that has been updated to include a second dynamic
link, wherein the second dynamic link leads from the first
electronic document to the second electronic document;
extracting, from the second set of instructions, the second
dynamic link corresponding to the text string in an anchor; and
navigating to the second electronic document using the
second dynamic link.
Claims App. 1-2.
The foregoing claim interpretation also applies to the “to simulate the
first dynamic link” in the “retrieve” step in claim 9 and to the “replay the at
least one recorded transaction” attributed to the processor in that claim.
On the other hand, we agree with Appellant’s argument that the
proposed combination of Hodson and Kim is improper because Kim does
not relate to dynamic links and therefore would not have been understood to
teach or suggest storing the “text string in an anchor” in order to record a
transaction based on dynamics links, including Hodson’s dynamic links,
which represent shopping cart transactions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Because Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Hodson in view
of Kim and Nielsen, we are reversing the rejection of those claims and the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on that ground.
Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

22
For the same reasons, we are also reversing the remaining § 103(a)
rejections: (a) the rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 based on Hodson in
view of Nielsen, Kim, and Steele; (b) the rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, and 17
based on Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Hunt; (c) the rejection of
claims 20 and 21 based on Hodson in view of Nielsen, Kim, and Judson; and
(d) the rejection of claims 5 and 13 based on Hodson in view of Nielsen,
Kim, and Li.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-21 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the applied prior art is reversed.

Appeal 2008-3128
Application 09/858,634

23

REVERSED

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400