Ex Parte Sima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2013

11461767 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CALEB SIMA, RAYMOND KELLY,
STEVE MILLAR, ROBERT RABOUD, BRYAN SULLIVAN,
JERRY SULLIVAN, and DAVID TILLERY
____________

Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,7671
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,767

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a crawling technique that
includes an interactive mode to enhance data input capabilities. See Spec. ¶
[0002].
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer based method for performing a crawl of a
target, the method comprising the steps of:
initiating, by a computer, a crawling process on the
target;
encountering a structure that requires data input;
prompting, by the computer, a user to respond to the
requirement for data input;
receiving, by the computer, the response from the user;
applying, by the computer, the user response in
satisfaction of the data input requirement for the crawling process; and
storing, by the computer, the data input in a file
accessible by the crawler on future scans of the target.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Reshef (US Patent Pub. 2003/0233581
A1, Dec. 18, 2003) and Styslinger (US Patent Pub. 2005/0138426 A1, Jun.
23, 2005); and
Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,767

3
R2. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reshef, Styslinger, and Polizzi (US Patent Pub.
2002/0023122 A1, Feb. 21, 2002).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Reshef
and Styslinger fails to teach and/or suggest “storing . . . the data input in a
file accessible by the crawler on future scans of the target,” as set forth in
claim 1?

Appellants contend that the combination of Reshef and Styslinger
fails to teach and/or suggest “storing data input so that it is accessible by the
crawler on future scans of the target as required by claim 1” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants further contend that “nowhere in Styslinger is data input saved
for use in future application assessments” (id. at 13).
The Examiner found that “Reshef does not teach storing the data input
in a file accessible to the crawler on future scans of a target” (Ans. 3), but
further notes that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill at the time the invention was made to modify Reshef’s
system to store the manually supplied password as taught by
Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,767

4
Stylinger for the purpose of using the credentials for future
automatic vulnerability tests of the site wherein the stored data
is used as values or password for the forms instead of an input
from a user.
(Id. at 4). We agree with the Examiner.
In essence, the Examiner relies upon the collective teachings of
Reshef and Styslinger to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned argued
limitation. Unfortunately, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account
what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). This reasoning is
applicable here.
For example, Reshef discloses:
A crawling engine 13 for crawling over or traversing
some or all of the links in the target web site 40. The crawl
engine can operate in one of three modes:
(i) automatic; (ii) manual; or (iii) interactive. . . . In the
interactive mode, the engine 13 crawls over the links . . . .
However, in the event HTML forms . . . are encountered which
require user interaction, the engine 13 requests the operator to
supply the field values.
(¶¶ [0031]-[0032], [0048]). In other words, Reshef discloses initiating a
crawling process on the target, encountering a structure that requires data
input, i.e., an HTML form, prompting a user in the interactive mode to
Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,767

5
respond to the requirement for data input, i.e., supply the field values, and
allowing the user to manually input the data. Thus, Reshef clearly discloses
“input data” being used during the crawling stage. We add that Reshef
further discloses that “the salient attributes of the HTTP request are stored so
that it can be reconstructed at a later time. In particular, any HTTP method,
e.g., GET or POST, the requested link or URL, and the method’s data
parameters are noted” (see ¶ [0050]). Thus, we find that Reshef also
suggests storing input data for later use.
Nonetheless, the Examiner relies on Styslinger for this feature.
Appellants merely allege that Styslinger “do[es] not refer at all to data input”
but merely teaches “saving acquired data” (see App. Br. 13). In other
words, Appellants seek to distinguish the claimed “data input” from
Styslinger’s “acquired data.” However, as noted above, the test for
obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references, but rather the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. As Reshef clearly discloses using “input data” acquired from a
user during the interactive crawling stage, it is not necessary that Styslinger
also discloses such a feature. Styslinger is specifically being used by the
Examiner for disclosing storing acquired data (e.g., “the invention is able to
store and/or log all data flowing between the testing entity and the
application system, including connection and hand-shaking” (see ¶ [0060]))
and that “[t]he acquired data and generated information can then be
leveraged 192 for re-running tests 193, automating or simplifying retests 194
. . . ” (see ¶ [0125]).
Appeal 2010-010067
Application 11/461,767

6
Although Styslinger refers to the data as “acquired data,” we fail to
see how such “acquired data” excludes “input data,” particularly given that
Styslinger’s data includes hand-shaking techniques requiring authorization
(e.g., password usage), which generally suggests data input from a user.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we find no error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 essentially for
the reasons indicated by the Examiner.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosures of Reshef and Styslinger, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-4, 6-13,
and 15-20 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Claims 5 and 14
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for dependent
claims 5 and 14. Therefore, these claims fall with the claims from which
they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
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
babc