Ex Parte Hepper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

13469649 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/469,649
75532 7590
LEE LAW, PLLC
IBMRSWIP
FILING DATE
05/11/2012
03/09/2016
P.O. BOX 189
PITTSBORO, NC 27312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Hepper
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RSW920090022US2 1388
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
docketing@leelawpllc.com
docketing_archive@leelawpllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN HEPPER and MARSHALL ALLEN LAMB
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to server controlled client-side logging of
events on web client devices. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a web content server, a request for web
content from a web client device, where the web content
comprises executable syntax;
determining at least one of a logging enablement status
and a logging level associated with the web content;
configuring client-side web content execution logging
executable syntax within the web content based upon the
determined at least one of the logging enablement status and the
logging level associated with the web content,
where the client-side web content execution logging
executable syntax provides debugging and diagnostic
capabilities for the executable syntax of the web content during
execution of the executable syntax of the web content by the
web client device; and
sending the web content with the configured client-side
web content execution logging executable syntax to the web
client device.
Tanzer
REFERENCES
US 2007/0255818 Al Nov. 1, 2007
What's in an HTTP request, available at http://www.web.archive.org/web/
20080713062244/http:/ ldjce.org.uk/dumprequest (last visited Jan. 28, 2011)
("HTTP Request")
REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 11, and 19 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 9, and 18 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,239,493. Final Act. 4--5.
2
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
Claims 1, 4--9, 12-17, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tanzer. Final Act. 6-11.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tanzer in view of HTTP Request. Final Act. 11-12.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 3, 11, and 19
The Examiner rejects these claims as unpatentable on double
patenting grounds over claims 1, 9, and 18 of US Patent No. 8,239,493.
Final Act. 5. Appellants do not contest the rejection. App. Br. 16.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20--24
Issue 1: Whether Tanzer discloses receiving a request for web
content comprising executable syntax
The Examiner finds Tanzer discloses this limitation by disclosing a
server that receives an HTML request for a webpage from a client computer.
Final Act. 6 (citing Tanzer i-f 66). Appellants argue "there is no actual
disclosure of the HTML request requesting web content that itself comprises
executable syntax." App. Br. 26.
3
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that a request for a web page written in HTML code is a
request for web content comprising executable syntax. See Ans. 7.
Issue 2: Whether Tanzer discloses determining a logging
enablement status and a logging level associated with web
content
The Examiner finds Tanzer discloses this limitation by determining
whether a data capture service for a webpage has been enabled. Final Act. 6
(citing Tanzer i-fi-167---68, Fig. 2a). Appellants argue Tanzer's data capture
service records customer attributes, and "the recording of customer attributes
is not related to debugging and diagnostics of actual executable syntax
within web content." App. Br. 28.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that Tanzer discloses determining whether a data capture
service for a webpage has been enabled. See Tanzer i-fi-1 66-67, Fig. 2a. If
so, the webpage is returned with a JavaScript tag that is used to retrieve
JavaScript and an applet to capture and log the user's interaction with the
webpage. Id. i167. Appellants do not persuasively argue that determining
whether to enable a data capture service to log user interaction with a
webpage fails to disclose determining at least one of a logging enablement
status and a logging level associated with the web content.
4
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
Issue 3: Whether Tanzer discloses configuring client-side web
content execution logging executable syntax within web content
that provides debugging and diagnostic capabilities for the web
content executable syntax
The Examiner finds Tanzer discloses this limitation by disclosing
embedding JavaScript into an HTML document that, when executed,
captures and logs user activity while interacting with the HTML document.
Final Act. 6 (citing Tanzer i-fi-122, 67----69, Fig. 2a).
Appellants argue Tanzer's recording of user activity, via JavaScript, is
"different from Appellant's claimed client-side web content execution
logging executable syntax that 'provides debugging and diagnostic
capabilities for the executable syntax of the web content during execution.'"
App. Br. 22. Appellants further argue Tanzer's JavaScript is not configured
within web content because Tanzer teaches embedding a Javascript tab
within the web content, and a "Javascript tab is not equivalent to Appellant's
claimed executable syntax." App. Br. 20. Appellants further argue Tanzer
subsequently downloads an Applet that is separate from and not configured
within the web content to log user activity. Id. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments.
First, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term client-side web content execution logging
executable syntax that provides debugging and diagnostic capabilities, in
view of the Specification, is "a form of executable code which allows for the
logging of information and subsequently allows for the logged information
to be sent to the server." Ans. 4--5 (citing Spec. i-fi-14, 18, 21, 22, and 64----69).
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Tanzer's disclosure of using
Javascript to log user activity discloses client-side web content execution
5
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
logging executable syntax that provides debugging and diagnostic
capabilities.
Second, we note that in addition to describing embodiments in which
the JavaScript is external to a received webpage, the cited sections of Tanzer
disclose embodiments in which the "JavaScriptâ„¢ ... is embedded into an
HTML document ... and, is executed by the user's Web client browser. ...
The JavaScriptâ„¢ captures the user activity, buffers the data, and feeds the
data to an Applet." Tanzer i-f 22; see also Tanzer, Fig. 2d (showing client
20a requesting a webpage from server 1 Oa, and receiving a webpage with
monitoring software).
Issue 4: Whether Tanzer discloses sending the web content
with the configured client-side web content execution logging
executable syntax to the web client device
The Examiner finds Tanzer discloses this limitation by sending to a
requesting client device a webpage (HTML document) having embedded
JavaScript that captures and logs user activity while interacting with the
webpage. Final Act. 6 (citing Tanzer i-fi-122, 68---69, Fig. 2a-2c). Appellants
argue the Examiner has failed to identify the "claimed client-side web
content execution logging executable syntax" and the "claimed configuring
of Appellant's claimed client-side web content execution logging executable
syntax within web content." App. Br. 30. Appellants further argue Tanzer
discloses "several different request sequences to ultimately send the Java
applet (that is disclosed to be separate from the web page accessed by the
original web address in paragraph [0066]) to the client device." Id. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
6
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
As explained supra, we agree with the Examiner that Tanzer' s
Javascript that is used to log user activity is both embedded in the webpage
that is sent to the user, and provides debugging and diagnostic capabilities
for that webpage. See Tanzer if 22; Fig. 2d.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Tanzer. Appellants argue claims
9 and 17 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 20.
Moreover, although purporting to provide separate arguments, Appellants'
arguments for the patentability of claims 4--8, 12-16, and 20-24 are
essentially the same as their arguments for the patentability of claim 1. Id. at
31--42.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--9,
12-17, and 20-24.
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Issue 5: Whether HTTP discloses a source address is included
with a web request.
The Examiner finds the HTTP reference teaches or suggests the
request for web content comprises at least one of an IP address or a user ID
associated with the client device. Final Act. 12 (citing HTTP, 2); Ans. 8
(citing HTTP, 2, 6). Appellants argue the HTTP reference discloses the
contents of the HTTP request in a dashed box, and fails to disclose the
source IP address from which the HTTP request originated. App. Br. 45--46.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The HTTP reference teaches that "[i]n order to send the appropriate
response back to your computer, the web server necessarily knows your
computer's IP address, and a port number to which to send the response."
7
Appeal2013-009381
Application 13/469,649
HTTP, 2 (emphasis added). The reference further discloses "[t]he most
interesting pieces of information contained in the request are: the IP address
of you and/or your HTTP proxy." Id. at 6.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2, 10, and 18. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4--9, 12-17, and
20-24 is sustained.
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 2, 10, and 18 is
sustained.
The Examiner's double patenting rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19 is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8