Ex Parte Newton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

10401380 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRIS NEWTON and CHRIS CARTON
____________

Appeal 2010-006280
Application 10/401,380
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006280
Application 10/401,380

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1-21. Appeal Brief 10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.

Introduction
“The claimed invention relates to correlating network activity through
visualizing network data.” Appeal Brief 7.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method of correlating network activity through visualizing
network data, said method comprising:
classifying network traffic in dependence upon first and second
parameters into first and second network traffic views, respectively;
creating first and second view objects corresponding to the first and
second network traffic views;
logically combining the first and second view objects to provide a new
view object;
creating a new view corresponding to the new view object; establishing
a list of entities for the new view object; and associating data flows for each
of the entities with the new view, wherein the network traffic views provide
a representation of the distribution of network traffic in accordance with
each of the first and second parameters.

Appeal 2010-006280
Application10/401,380

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Germain (U.S. Patent Number 6,900,822 B2; issued May 31,
2005). Answer 3-7.

Issue on Appeal
Does Germain fail to teach logically combining first and second view
objects corresponding to first and second traffic views, wherein the
combination results in a new view object with corresponding new view?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue that Germain does not teach logically combining
first and second view objects to provide a new object as featured in
independent Claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds that
Appellants’ definition of “view” is nothing more than network traffic that
meets a condition and that “view object” is merely a parameter for the
condition. Answer 7. The Examiner further finds that based upon
Appellants’ definition of “view”, the cited portions of Germain shows
multiple conditions or views and therefore the claimed invention is not
Appeal 2010-006280
Application10/401,380

4
distinguishable over Germain. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings
because Appellants have not presented any rationale to the contrary.
Appellants further argue that Germain does not teach displaying any
data that is a function of a logical operator, such as an intersection, “let alone
providing a new object (or defining a new view object) that is the result of a
logical operation combing [sic] at least two view objects.” Appeal Brief
12. However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with scope of the
invention because the claims do not state that the first and second view
objects are combined via an “intersection” operator. During examination of
a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words
of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary
meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc) (internal citations omitted).
The Examiner finds that Appellants do not claim “a new view object
created by intersection” but instead, claim a “logical operator.” Answer
8. The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification discloses “the term
‘logical operator’ covers an ‘or’ function.” Id. The Examiner also finds that
Germain clearly teaches the use of an “or” logical operator and further finds
that the “combination of showing traffic that features one metric (e.g. device
load) or another metric (e.g. link throughput) satisfies the appellant’s
definition of a logical operator that creates a new view object.”
Id. Therefore we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
limitation “logically combining” is reasonable.
Appeal 2010-006280
Application10/401,380

5
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as independent
claims 19, 20 and 21 for the same reasons as stated above. In regard to
claim 18, the Examiner finds that Germain discloses using graphical request
language designation to define view objects by combining the new view
operators with logical operators and generating a new list of
addresses. Answer 6. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Finally, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2-17, not separately argued, for the same
reasons stated above.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-21 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl