Ex Parte Selig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

11980153 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/980,153 10/30/2007 Roy A. Selig 2006-277-02 (0118) 9815
51444 7590 05/31/2017
COOPER LEGAL GROUP (PETE KRAGULJAQ/ORACLE
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
MUthoff@CooperLegalGroup.com
DD ay @ CooperLegalGroup .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY A. SELIG1
Appeal 2016-000023
Application 11/980,153
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Roy A. Selig (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a
rejection of claims 13, 16—18, 27—29, and 31—33. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant the Real Party in Interest is Oracle International
Corporation.
Appeal 2016-000023
Application 11/980,153
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a browser extension for web form fill.
Abstract. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
13. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing
computer executable instructions that when executed by a
computer cause the computer to perform a method, the method
comprising:
controlling at least a processor to determine that a web
page being processed by a web browser includes a set of forms
defined in a Document Object Model (DOM) associated with the
web page, and to enumerate the set of forms defined in the DOM;
enumerating a set of elements for the set of forms from the
web page;
acquiring a set of information for the set of elements,
wherein acquiring the set of information includes acquiring
information for elements that are form fields and are not of a type
that indicates password, hidden, button, or image;
creating a template by aggregating the set of information
from the webpage into the template;
associating the template with the web page;
providing the template to a form-fill process, wherein
providing the template to the form-fill process causes the set of
forms in the web page to be automatically populated by using the
template on a subsequent viewing of the web page, wherein the
set of elements are a set of fields that can be filled with input
data; and
applying one or more field-type specific visual effects to
the set of fields to be filled on a display screen, where the specific
visual effects are determined, at least in part, by field-types of
the fields to be filled, where the set of information includes field
values for the set of elements received from a user input.
2
Appeal 2016-000023
Application 11/980,153
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
REJECTION
Claims 13, 16—18, 27—29, and 31—33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Borodovski, Rawat, and Eaves.
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Borodovski and
Rawat disclose most of the limitations of independent claim 13 including
providing a template to a form-fill process and associating the template with
a web page. Final Act. 3 (citing Borodovski, para. 21 and Rawat, paras. 6, 9,
and 21). The Examiner relies on Eaves as “teach[ing] . . . creating a
template by aggregating the set of information from the webpage into the
template.” Id. at 4 (citing Eaves, para. 5). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious “to use the template engine from Eaves [] to
improve the invention [of Borodovski as modified by Rawat] with the
reasonable expectation that it would result in a device that would create a
more efficient and practical content management system.” Id. With respect
to independent claim 27, the Examiner rejects this claim “along the same
rationale.” Id. at 7. Appellant asserts that Eaves generates an interface to an
XML document that is “loaded from an external database.” Appeal Br. 7
(citing Eaves, para. 12). Appellant argues that the term “web page” is well
Rawat
Borodovski
Eaves
US 2002/0156846 A1 Oct. 24, 2002
US 2004/0205526 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
US 2007/0288837 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
OPINION
3
Appeal 2016-000023
Application 11/980,153
known and that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not confuse or
interpret an XML document as being ‘a web page being processed by a
browser.’” Id.
The Examiner responds that web pages are generally written in mark­
up languages such as HTML and XML. Ans. 2. The Examiner states that
Eaves’ “system 100 includes a template engine 102 configured for creating a
plurality of customizable web-based forms/entry templates . . . based upon
an XML (Extensible Markup Language) document 108 which has been
loaded by the system 100.” Ans. 3 (citing Eaves, para. 11). The Examiner
finds the fact that “Eaves uses the term ‘XML’ and not ‘web page’ does not
make it any less valid of a reference for meeting the limitation in question.”
Ans. 4.
Appellant replies that Eaves uses “‘entry templates’ that are based on
a pre-loaded XML document.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Eaves, para. 11).
Appellant argues that “[njowhere does Eaves even allude to creating a
template from a web page.” Id. at 3.
We agree with Appellant on this point. Although we appreciate that
the specific term “web page” need not be used because web pages are
generally written in mark-up language such as XML, the Examiner does not
explain adequately how Eaves teaches “creating a template from a webpage
being visited.” Ans. 3. Eaves discloses that a “plurality of customizable
web-based forms (104,106) may be based upon an XML (Extensible
Markup Language) document 108 which has been loaded by the system
100.” Eaves, para. 11. Eaves discloses that the document could be loaded to
the system 100 by an upload, “which may include transmitting the XML
document from another system’s database (not shown) to the illustrated
4
Appeal 2016-000023
Application 11/980,153
system 100.” Id. para. 12. The Examiner does not explain adequately how a
document merely loaded by the system or transmitted from another system’s
database is the same as visiting or browsing a web page. A web page is
already on the web, whereas Eaves is manipulating an XML document that
may be used to create a web page. Id. Fig. 1. As such, the Examiner has not
adequately established that Eaves’ XML document is “a web page being
processed by a web browser,” as called for by claim 13. The Examiner has
also not adequately established that Eaves’ XML document constitutes a
web page from which a template is created, as called for by independent
claim 27. In other words, the Examiner does not adequately explain how
Eaves teaches “creating a template . . . from the webpage” being visited, as
called for by each of independent clams 13 and 27.
Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Eaves teaches creating a template
by aggregating the set of information from the webpage into the template is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 16—18, 27—29,
and 31—33 as unpatentable over Borodovski, Rawat, and Eaves.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 16—18, 27—29, and 31—33 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5