Ex Parte Rastegar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

11520320 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

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.
11/520,320 09/13/2006 Jahangir S. Rastegar 10039 7741
79998 7590 12/27/2012
Thomas Spinelli, Esq.
14 Mystic Lane
Northprot, NY 11768
EXAMINER
LIAO, JASON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MAXIMINO AGUILAR JR., PATRICK JOSEPH BOHRER,
JAMES MICHAEL STAFFORD
____________

Appeal 2010-007730
Application 11/520,320
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JEFFREY S.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007730
Application 11/520,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method for storing form data, the method comprising:

displaying a form at an internet or intranet web site;

allowing a user to enter data into the form;

saving the data entered by the user; and

indicating a date that the data was entered.

Prior Art
Kikinis US 5,727,159 Mar. 10, 1998
Ginter US 6,185,683 B1 Feb. 6, 2001

Reinhard et al., Microsoft and Hotmail: It’s About Capturing
Eyeballs’, (Jan. 1998), available at
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1998/b3561059.arc.htm.

EPave User Guide, US Department of Commerce, pp., 1, 3, 7, 11, 36,
39, 45, 48, and 49 (Jan. 2000).

Crouch, Public Pair Announced, PatentlyO.com, (Aug. 2004),
available at
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/08/public_pair_ann.html.

Appeal 2010-007730
Application 11/520,320

3
Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents, A Treatise on the Law of
Patentability, Validity and Infringement, (Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.)
5.06(1)(a), 5(b), (Aug. 2009),

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over ePAVE and Ginter.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over ePAVE, Ginter, and Crouch.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12
Appellants contend that the combination of ePAVE and Ginter does
not teach “displaying a form at an internet or intranet web site” as recited in
claim 1. Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds that ePAVE teaches displaying a form
and Ginter teaches a web site. Ans. 3-4.
Figure 8-4 on page 36 of ePAVE shows a form that is displayed to a
user. The form is sent to a user’s computer from a remote site using an
electronic network. See page 1 (a security software program enables a
secure communication link between USPTO and electronic filers); page 11
(the security software supports Web browsers such as Internet Explorer).
Ginter teaches that an electronic network, that can send information,
includes the Internet and a WEB Page Direct. Col. 40, ll. 15-22. We find
that displaying the form of ePAVE at an Internet Web site as taught by
Ginter is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
Appeal 2010-007730
Application 11/520,320

4
that does no more than yield the predictable result of displaying the form to
a user at an Internet Web site.
In addition to the Examiner’s findings, we cumulatively find that
ePAVE also teaches “displaying a form at an internet or intranet web site.”
For example, the form displayed in Figure 8-4 of ePAVE is sent from a
remote site over an electronic network connection and is displayed by a Web
browser. See pages 1 and 11. Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to distinguish “displaying a form at an internet or
intranet web site” from receiving a form from a remote site over an
electronic network and displaying the form to a user in a Web browser as
taught by ePAVE.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-4, 6-8,
10, and 12 which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 9
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claim 9, which falls with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over ePAVE and Ginter is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over ePAVE, Ginter, and Crouch is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-007730
Application 11/520,320

5
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

rwk