Software Research, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2019005731 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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.
14/211,305 03/14/2014 Edward F. Miller 501-P002D2 4693
68803 7590 04/02/2021
TI Law Group, PC
1055 E Brokaw Road
Suite 30-355
San Jose, CA 95131-2116
EXAMINER
RUTTEN, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
TILGDocket@yahoo.com
aspence@tipatents.com
dthomas@tipatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD F. MILLER
Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–23. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Software Research,
Inc. which received ownership from Edward F. Miller. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for testing websites.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium including at least
computer program code executable by a client computer, said
computer readable medium comprising:
computer program code, executable by the client
computer, for creating a playback program that senses document
object model (DOM) events, the playback program including
computer programming commands that support parameters;
computer program code, executable by the client
computer, for providing a test-enabled browser capable of
performing the playback program, wherein when the
test-enabled browser performs the playback program, the test-
enabled browser is controlled to implement testing specified by
the playback program, wherein the test-enabled browser accesses
scripting capabilities of the test-enabled browser to perform
testing specified by the computer programming commands of the
playback program, wherein the testing being performed is testing
a web-based resource, the web-based resource having a DOM
representation with a plurality of DOM elements;
computer program code, executable by the client
computer, for providing a browser programming interface that
enables the test-enabled browser to have integral access to the
DOM representation; and
computer program code for supporting at least one
command, provided to the test-enabled browser via the browser
programming interface, to simulate an event action being
received at the test-enabled browser to thereby facilitate testing
and analysis of the web-based resource rendered by the test-
enabled browser,
wherein at least one of the computer programming
commands operates to sense a DOM event, and wherein the at
least one of the computer programming commands or at least
another of the computer programming commands operates to
cause one or more actions to be performed in response to the
sensing of the DOM event, and wherein at least one of the actions
Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305

3
operates, via the browser programming interface, to input a value
or content into at least one of the DOM elements within the DOM
representation of the web-based resource being tested, and
wherein the computer program code for the playback
program, the computer program code for providing a browser
programming interface and the computer program code for
supporting at least one command are integrated within the test-
enabled browser.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Miller US 2003/0005044 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Boodaei US 2008/0222736 A1 Sept. 11, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 1–3 and 5–23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Boodaei.
OPINION
Does the combination of Miller in view of Boodaei teach or suggest
the limitation of “a browser programming interface that enables the test-
enabled browser to have integral access to the DOM representation” as
recited in claim 1?

Appellant argues that Boodaei in paragraph 56 teaches that any access
to the document object model (DOM) is by the use of the programming class
IWebBrowser2 COM interface, which can provide access to the DOM of an
active IE browser but only through the COM. Appeal Br. 7. According to
Appellant such access is indirect, requiring two stages to modify DOM
elements. Id. Appellant argues that Boodaei can modify DOM elements for
supporting Internet security by use of an IWebBrowser2 COM interface,
Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305

4
which indirectly acts on the DOM. Id. According to Appellant, claim 1, in
contrast, acts via the browser programming interface of the test-enabled
browser to input a value or content into the DOM representation of a web
based resource being tested by the test-enabled browser. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. At the outset, we note
that claim 1 has no requirement to “directly” act on the DOM. See claim 1.
Rather, claim 1 is directed to “a browser programming interface that enables
the test-enabled browser to have integral access to the DOM representation.”
Ans. 5 (citing claim 1). The Examiner finds that the Specification describes
a browser programming interface that enables the browser to have integral
access to the DOM representation using standard browser components
including use of the IWebBrowser2 interface. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. paras.
93, 96, 101, and Fig. 3, element 310). We give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language in light of the Specification includes
standard browsing components and standard DOM models typically
employed in available general purpose web browsers that include the
IWebBrowser2 interface depicted in Figure 3, element 310. Ans. 5 and see
para. 101. The Examiner explains that Miller was cited for teaching the use
of the COM interface by the eValid tool to provide integral DOM access.
Ans. 5. Boodaei was relied upon for an additional teaching of the use of the
same IWebBrowser2 interface as described in Appellant’s Specification, and
considered to provide the same “integral” access. Id.

Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305

5
Are Boodaei and Miller analogous art?

Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would not seek to combine
Boodaei with Miller because it would be unreasonable to believe one skilled
in the art would seek to combine Boodaei which concerns preventing
Internet security attacks, with Miller’s testing of websites. Appeal Br. 8.
The relevant problems are distinct, and the fields of endeavor are different.
Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the relevant issue is “what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree that Miller teaches website testing
and similar to the test-enabled browser of Appellant’s claims. Ans. 6.
Boodaei teaches the DOM modification in order to inspect and manipulate
website interaction to verify proper operation of a website. Id. We agree
with the Examiner that verification of proper operation could be regarded as
a form of testing. Id.
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor
was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for
rejection. References are selected as being reasonably
pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person
having ordinary skill in the art.

In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-005731
Application 14/211,305

6
Thus, Boodaei’s use of a DOM for verification purposes could be
considered to be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the applicant was concerned, i.e., using a DOM to respond to site
manipulation events. Id. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Boodaei’s DOM manipulation would allow for the
verification of proper operation using Miller’s test-enabled browser.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 because Appellant
relies on the same arguments as those raised for claim 1. We also affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–17, and 19–23 not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is Affirmed.

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–23 is Affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–23 103(a) Miller, Boodaei 1–3, 5–23
RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED