Ex Parte Bianco

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2015

11772078 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT V. BIANCO
____________

Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and device for creating a
new project including assessment criteria, importing findings from a group
of different network security tools into the new project based on the
assessment criteria, normalizing the imported findings, and storing the
normalized findings. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 33–34, 36–38, 41–43, 46, 53–54; Abs.;
Figs. 3–7.
Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078

2

Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below (disputed
limitations in italics):
1. A method performed by one or more devices, the method
comprising:
creating, by the one or more devices, a project that includes
one or more assessment criteria selected by a user from a
plurality of assessment criteria;
obtaining, from a plurality of different network security
tools associated with the one or more devices, assessment data
associated with one or more network devices, for a particular
assessment criterion of the one or more assessment criteria,
wherein the assessment data includes a first data file in a first
format and a second data file in a second format that differs
from the first format, and a first unit of measurement and a
second unit of measurement for the particular assessment
criterion, wherein the first unit of measurement differs from the
second unit of measurement;
normalizing, by the one or more devices, the assessment
data including at least one of converting the first data file to the
second format or converting the first unit of measurement to the
second unit of measurement; and
organizing, by the one or more devices, the normalized
assessment data to form the project.
REJECTION
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zobel (US 7,340,776 B2, Mar. 4, 2008) and Barton (US.6,944,775 B2,
Sept. 13, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response
Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078

3

to the Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner relies on Barton for teaching or suggesting “the
assessment data includes . . . a first unit of measurement and a second unit of
measurement for the particular assessment criterion, wherein the first unit of
measurement differs from the second unit of measurement,” recited in claim
1. Ans. 5–6. Without citing supporting evidence, the Examiner finds:
Barton teaches of sending/requesting/processing multiple
scanning engines to be used for scanning multiple network
elements, whereas the scanning engines can be distinct – insofar
as incompatible input/internal output formats an metrics used –
and the resulting events are processed via an event processor
and engine(s) interface application control function, to
‘translate the events in a common format’ (e.g., aggregate, etc.,)
inclusive of data transport/formatting structures (i.e., file(s)),
with associated distinct time tagging and event enumeration
aspects (i.e., units of measurement) for input/internal/output
event processing.
Id. The Examiner also finds:
Barton discloses in, at least, figures 3–6 and accompanying
descriptions, and more succinctly col. 4,[ ]lines 20–67, col.
5,[ ]lines 10–59, the aspect concerning multiple scanning
engines that are different (and incompatible in the associated
input/internal/processing/output/formats) – that said different
scanners (output) events that require translation into a common
format (i.e., the primary purpose of Barton’s ‘event processing
module’; e.g., col. 2,[ ]lines 15–20, col. 4,[ ]lines 6–19 –
inclusive of consideration of the unit(s) of measure of the
event(s) detected/scanned. More succinctly, the Appellant’s
failure to find the “event enumeration aspects (i.e., units of
measurement)[]” reference in Barton . . . is related to the fact
that the Appellant is not considering the term “enumeration” –
as it is known in the art – to refer to the aspect of effectively
assigning a quantitative aspect to a particular aspect in
questions – in this case the “units of measure” aspect of the
Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078

4

event associated with a particular scanner output – determined
as a result of the particular scanner output, as formatted
uniquely on a per scanner type basis. More succinctly, the
scanner event output result is 'enumerated' with values
effectively in units of measurement related to the particular
level of detail, or a 'granularity' of detail/complexity related to
the given scanners unique format, in of itself a function of the
scanner associated hardware (e.g., col. 2,[ ]lines 44-col. 3,[ ]line
7), application software, operating system (e.g., col. 3,[ ]lines
28-39), etc. In other words, in the case of a simple scanner
alert/no alert output format upon detecting a virus/malware, the
units of measure are effectively a binary yes/no or zero/one - a
course level of granularity. In the case of a more detailed
scanner specifically named virus/malware formatted output for
subsequent quarantined processing, the units of measure are
effectively an enumerated string or numerical value - a finer
level of granularity, that is clearly a different unit of measure
from the first case of the simple scanner alert/no alert output
format units of measure.
Id. at 34–35.
Appellant presents the following persuasive arguments: (1) Barton
does not disclose or suggest the events include a first unit of a measurement
and a second unit of measurement that differ for the particular assessment
criterion (App. Br. 13); and (2) the cited portions, and any other portions, of
Barton do not provide support for the Examiner’s assertions of “multiple
levels of complexity/granularity” associated with Barton’s translated events
(Reply Br. 5–6). App. Br. 13–15.
We apply “to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078

5

1997). The ordinary and customary meaning of “unit of measurement” is:
“a standard amount of a physical quantity, such as length, mass, energy, etc.,
specified in multiples of which are used to express magnitudes of that
physical quantity.” Collins English Dictionary (2000)
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hcengdict/unit/0 (last
accessed Jan. 6, 2015).
Barton discloses utilizing multiple proprietary and incompatible
scanning engines adapted to scan data using a unique set of procedures,
resources, etc., Barton, col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 7; col. 2, ll. 21–23; col. 3, ll. 1–
5; Figs. 3–4. The scanning engines scan the data and respond with events
identifying unwanted content (i.e., pornography, banned phrases, etc.),
viruses, malicious code, etc. Id. at col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 5. An event look up
table is utilized for correlating events received from the scanning engines,
and may be logic or rule-based, from a simple table translation to
complicated algorithmic data interpolation. Id. at col. 4, ll. 27–32, 65–67.
The Examiner does not direct us to, and we cannot find, where Barton
discloses, teaches, or suggests the events returned by the multiple scanning
engines include a first unit of measurement (i.e., a first standard amount of a
physical quantity, specified in multiples to express magnitudes of that
physical quantity), and a second different unit of measurement (i.e., second
different standard amount of a physical quantity, specified in multiples to
express magnitudes of that physical quantity). Nor does the Examiner direct
us to a sufficient factual basis to support finding Barton’s scanner event
output results are enumerated with values related to the particular level of
detail or granularity (i.e., a course level of granularity and a finer level of
granularity).
Appeal 2012-006240
Application 11/772,078

6

For at least these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2–4 dependent therefrom, as obvious over Zobel and
Barton. Similar to claim 1, independent claims 5 and 14 recite “assessment
data . . . containing a plurality of different units of measurement for a
particular assessment criterion.” For the same reasons as claim 1, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 5 and 14, and claims
6–13, and 15–22 dependent therefrom, as obvious over Zobel and Barton.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zobel and Barton.
REVERSED

msc