Ex Parte Sima et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 5, 201311461767 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation