Ex Parte Hattiangadi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2011

10865177 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANAND HATTIANGADI, JAMES ANDREW CLARK, and
KONSTANTIN KRUPNIKOV
____________________

Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, one embodiment of the invention provides a
technique for context translation, wherein using this technique, a rule-
specific error message can be translated into a context-specific error
message (Spec. 1, ¶ [0009]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method performed by a computer program, the method
comprising:

receiving a first message that comprises a rule-specific
error message that indicates one or more rules that were
violated by a portion of an Extensible Markup Language
(XML) document as a result of that portion not complying with
a specified schema that is one of: (a) an XML schema and (b) a
Document Type Definition (DTD);

wherein the computer program does not receive, with the
first message, a second message that comprises a context-
specific message that sets forth the meaning of the error
message in a particular implementation context;

in response to receiving the data, determining, based on a
first mapping, that the first message is mapped to the second
2
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

message, wherein the first mapping is not embodied in
executable code; and

in response to determining that the first message is
mapped to the second message, outputting the second message.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perla US 2002/0087915 A1 Jul. 04, 2002
Huang US 2004/0205076 A1 Oct. 14, 2004

Duyne et al, The Design of Sites: Patterns, Principles, and Processes
for Crafting a Customer-Centered Web Experience 590-597
(Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. 2002).

403-Errors, http://www.colba.net/~hlebo49/403.htm (last modified
May 22, 2004) (hereinafter “Errors 403”).

Cisco, IP Subnet Calculation & Design Online Documentation, Nov.
9, 1999, http://www.cisco.com/techtools/ip_addr_help.html

Claims 1-10, 14-23, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Perla in view of Duyne.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Perla in view of Duyne and Huang.
Claims 11 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perla in view of Duyne and Errors 403.
3
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perla in view of Duyne and Cisco.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in concluding that the combined teachings of
Perla and Duyne would have suggested “receiving a first message that
comprises a rule-specific error message that indicates one or more rules that
were violated by a portion of an Extensible Markup Language (XML)
document as a result of that portion not complying with a specific schema
that is one of: (a) an XML schema and (b) a Document Type Definition
(DTD)” (claim 1)? In particular, the issue turns on whether there is any
suggestion by the combined teachings of an error message indicating that
one or more rules were violated as a result of non-compliance with XML
schema or a DTD.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Perla
1. Perla recognizes that, since developers typically develop in a single
language, there is difficulty in creating error string handling in other
languages where the application may be used (p. 1, ¶ [0006]).
Accordingly, in Perla, multilingual error handling is accomplished (p.
7, ¶ [0138]).
4
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

2. In Perla, a schema is created (p. 1, ¶ [0011]), wherein when an error
occurs, an error text is retrieved and applied to a stylesheet in an error
form which is displayed to the user on the user device (p. 1, ¶ [0012]).
3. Elements contained in an HTML application are described as XML-
based schemas (p. 3, ¶ [0046]), wherein the error number for an
application is checked and once a match is found, a preset XML
schema is accessed which defines the error number, error message and
language of the requesting device (p. 7, ¶ [0138]).
Duyne
4. Duyne discloses error handling by using fonts, icons and colors that
are distinct from the rest of the Web page to highlight the error
message and direct attention to the right place on the Web page,
wherein errors indicate that the user has failed to complete a required
field or has entered an unrecognizable term (p. 594, Fig. K13.1).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that neither Perla nor Duyne “disclose, teach, or
suggest ‘receiving a first message that comprises a rule-specific error
message that indicates one or more rules that were violated by a portion
of an Extensible Markup Language (XML) document as a result of that
portion not complying with a specified schema that is one of: (a) an
XML schema and (b) a Document Type Definition (DTD)’ as recited in
Claim 1” (App. Br. 8). In particular, Appellants argue that “[a]lthough
certain parts of Perla mention schemas and error numbers, these portions say
absolutely nothing about rules that were violated by a portion of a
document as a result of that portion not complying with a specified
5
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

schema” (App. Br. 5). According to Appellants, Perla instead discloses that
“given an already existing error number that was thrown by the
application during runtime, a determination is made as to whether that
error number occurs at the form or application level” and thus does not
describe that “the forms themselves are validated against a schema or
otherwise checked for the existence of errors” (id.). Appellants further
contend that “Duyne reveals that it is a user’s entries into fields of a web
page, rather than any portion of the web page itself, that violates rules”
(App. Br. 7) and thus “Duyne does not disclose that the error message are
rules that were violated as a result of some portion of the web page failing to
comply with either an XML Schema or a DTD” since “Duyne says nothing
about XML Schema or DTD” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that “Perla teaches components in an xml
application … which produces error numbers for retrieving error messages
to be displayed to the user” wherein “a message defining the error number is
retrieved from a schema, and is displayed” (Ans. 12). The Examiner further
finds that though “Perla fails to specify whether the errors are generated as a
result from a portion of the document violating schema rules.…, Duyne
teaches displaying messages, whenever information input into form fields is
validated” (id.). Thus, according to the Examiner, “whenever the
information in the form fields does not meet the requirements of rules
associated with the form, me[s]sages are displayed to the user nearby the
fields that violated said rules” (id.). The Examiner then concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious to combine the generation of errors associated
with an application for requesting data shown by Perla with the validation of
the data input into a form as shown by Duyne” (id.).
6
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the Appellants.
That is, we cannot find any teaching or suggestion in the portions of Perla
and Duyne cited by the Examiner of an error message indicating that one or
more rules were violated as a result of non-compliance with XML schema or
a DTD.
Perla is directed to multilingual error handling (FF 1), wherein when
an error occurs, an error text is retrieved and applied to a stylesheet in an
error form which is displayed to the user on the user device (FF 2). In Perla,
the error number for an application is checked and once a match is found, a
preset XML schema is accessed which defines the error number, error
message and language of the requesting device (FF 3). We agree with
Appellants’ argument that “[a]lthough certain parts of Perla mention
schemas and error numbers,” these portions do not disclose “rules that were
violated by a portion of a document as a result of that portion not complying
with a specified schema” (App. Br. 5). That is, we agree that Perla discloses
that the error number already exist, wherein “a determination is made as to
whether that error number occurs at the form or application level” and thus
does not describe that “the forms themselves are validated against a schema
or otherwise checked for the existence of errors” (id.).
Furthermore, Duyne merely discloses errors indicating that the user
has failed to complete a required field or has entered an unrecognizable term
(FF 4). Though the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious
to combine the generation of errors associated with an application for
requesting data shown by Perla with the validation of the data input into a
form as shown by Duyne” (Ans. 12), we find that the portions of Perla and
Duyne do not suggest any teaching of “receiving a first message that
7
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

comprises a rule-specific error message that indicates one or more rules that
were violated by a portion of an Extensible Markup Language (XML)
document as a result of that portion not complying with a specific schema
that is one of: (a) an XML schema and (b) a Document Type Definition
(DTD)” as required by claim 1. In particular, no where in the portions of
Perla and Duyne is there a suggestion of an error message indicating that one
or more rules were violated as a result of non-compliance with XML schema
or a DTD.
Thus, though we agree with the Examiner that Perla discloses error
messages for portions of an XML document (FF 1-3) and that Duyne
discloses an error message indicating that rules were violated (FF 4), we do
not find any teaching or fair suggestion of an error message indicating that
one or more rules were violated as a result of non-compliance with XML
schema or a DTD as required by claim 1.
As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 1and
claims 2-10, 14-23, 25, and 27 falling therewith.
Claims 11-13, 24, and 26
We also find that Huang, Errors 403 and Cisco also do not cure these
noted deficiencies of Perla and Duyne. As such, we will also reverse the
rejection of claim 12 over Perla and Duyne in view of Huang, the rejection
of claims 11 and 24 over Perla and Duyne in view of Error 403, and the
rejection of claims 13 and 26 over Perla and Duyne in view of Cisco.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 1-27
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we have not sustained
8
Appeal 2009-007597
Application 10/865,177

the Examiner's rejection with respect to any claim on appeal. Therefore, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

peb

OSHA LIANG LLP/Oracle
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
9