Ex Parte BiancoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201511772078 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation