Ex Parte Plow et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2006

09922196 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte GREGORY MAURICE PLOW and FARROKH E. POURMIRZAIE
__________

Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 27. In an Amendment After
Final, claims 17 through 23 were canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 through 16 and 24 through 27
remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for automatically inputting user
information to an electronic form provided to a user computer from a server.

Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196

2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A method for automatically inputting user information to an electronic form provided to a
user computer from a server, comprising the acts of:

receiving the electronic form at the user computer, the electronic form requiring user
information to be input thereto;

retrieving user information from memory;

automatically inputting the user information to the electronic form;

updating the user information stored in the user computer in response to the user
manually inputting data to the form;

providing a menu of user names with each user name corresponding to a respective auto-
fill profile; and

allowing a user to select his or her name from the menu so that the autofill profile
corresponding to the selected name is used to provide information to the electronic form.

The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kikinis 5,794,259 Aug. 11, 1998
Pennell et al. (Pennell) 2002/0013788 Jan. 31, 2002
(filed May 18, 2001)

Claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Pennell.
Claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pennell in view of Kikinis.

Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196

3
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24 through 26, and sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27.
Anticipation is established when a single prior reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing
structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claim 1, we agree with the examiner’s
findings (answer, page 3) that Pennell describes all of the steps set forth in this claim. “[A] form
encountered on any number of web sites” is automatically filled in with information “stored
locally on each user’s computer” (paragraphs 0023 and 0024). A browser automation program
302 analyzes the form to determine the fields for which data is available from the user’s database
304 (paragraph 0026). “The user may supply all of the listed information in pop up window 401
or may modify some or all of it before supplying it to the form” (paragraph 0027). “Fig. 7

Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196

4
illustrates a web page form 100 filled in automatically by selecting the ‘fill in’ button”
(paragraph 0027). A menu of user names with each user’s name corresponding to a respective
“autofill profile” is provided for in Pennell, and the user is allowed to select his or her name
from the pull-down menu of names 403 so that the “autofill profile” corresponding to the
selected name is used to provide information to the form 100 (Figures 5 and 7; paragraph 0029).
Appellant’s arguments throughout the briefs to the contrary notwithstanding, claim 1 on
appeal does not preclude the use of the pop up window 401 to aid in the filling in of form 100.
Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The anticipation rejection of
claims 2 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24 through 26 is sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the arguments presented for
claim 1.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27, we
agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that a PIN is synonymous with a password
when used in the manner described by both Pennell (paragraphs 0032 and 0033) and Kikinis
(column 4, lines 32 through 37) to gain access to stored encrypted data. We additionally agree
with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan “to have required the use of a PIN to access the protected, encrypted information in order
to authenticate the proper user . . . .” In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through
8, 13, 15, 16 and 27 is sustained.

Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196

5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24
through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136 (a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/pgc
Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196

6
Rogitz & Associates
750 B Street
Suite 3120
San Diego, CA 92019