Ex Parte Appleton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2013

11855184 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2013)

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.
11/855,184 09/14/2007 CHRIS APPLETON GB920070073US1 6367
48916 7590 11/27/2013
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
SHINGLES, KRISTIE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2013 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 CHRIS APPLETON
____________________

Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a system and method
for propagating accelerated events in a network management system.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of managing a network comprising:
receiving a first system event from a monitored system to
create a first event item;
receiving a second system event from the monitored
system;
modifying the first event item based upon the second
system event to create a modified event item;
collecting, in database of event items, a batch of event
items including the modified event item and not the first event
item;
periodically notifying a client of the batch of event items;
and
directly notifying the client of the modified event item
independently of the periodic batch notification if the modified
event item satisfies a priority condition, respectively.

Reference
Baynes US 2002/0032722 A1 Mar. 14, 2002
Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184

3
Rejection
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Baynes. Ans. 4-6.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Baynes does not anticipate claims 1, 6, and 11
because Baynes relates to updating data objects based on event information
and Baynes’ event information does not modify event information. App. Br.
13. Additionally, Appellant asserts Baynes does not modify an event item
based on a second event to create a modified event item, “as the term is used
in Appellants’ [sic] Specification and claims.” Id. Specifically, Appellant
asserts the Examiner improperly “analogizes Baynes[’] ‘data objects’ as
Appellants’ [sic] ‘event items,’” because Baynes does not disclose “event
items are modified by other event items.” Id. Appellant further argues
Baynes merely “maintains a complete representation of an object to which
modifications are implemented and from which changes are propagated” and
does not disclose a “database of event items,” as recited in the claims. Id.
Finally, Appellant concedes Baynes “queues ‘event information,’” but
asserts Baynes does not disclose “storage of events in the database” because
Baynes stores all event information, whereas the claim requires the first
(unmodified) event item is not collected in a database of event items. Id.
We initially note the Examiner relies on disparate paragraphs 33-34,
99, 102-104, and 113-127 in Baynes, which are directed to multiple
embodiments, to meet the claim limitations. Ans.4, 7-8. However, it is not
enough in an anticipation rejection that the prior art reference discloses part
Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184

4
of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to
make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the
artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net
MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Moreover, the rigorous requirements of an anticipation rejection
require a one-for-one mapping of each claim limitation to the corresponding
portion of the reference, arranged as claimed, which the Examiner must
identify with particularity. “[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793
F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other
grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Four Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana
Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc). We find the Examiner
merely points to various paragraphs in Baynes and makes broad statements
that Baynes teaches the limitations. The Examiner has not identified
particular aspects of Baynes that meet the recited limitations in a way that
provides a clear, one-for-one mapping of the limitations to Baynes’
disclosure. Furthermore, to the extent we understand the Examiner’s
intended mappings, the mappings are inconsistent. See, e.g., Ans. 4.
Additionally, as argued by Appellant (App. Br. 13), we are unable to
identify where Baynes teaches storing a database of event items where the
modified event item, but not the original event item, is stored.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds Baynes
teaches modifying “a first event [in] a first system based upon a modified
event from a second system” and “modifying/changing data object B based
upon the system modification event for data object A,” thus disclosing
“modifying the first event item based upon the second system event to create
Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184

5
a modified event item,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 7. The Examiner also
finds “it is explicitly clear that when the events are generated upon a change
being detected, the events are not collected for transmission, but the
‘representations of objects’ or the ‘modification or addition of the
representation of the object,’” thus disclosing “collecting, in database of
event items, a batch of event items including the modified event item and
not the first event item,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 7-8. These statements
do not provide any additional clarity regarding the mapping of the
limitations to Baynes’ disclosure.
We find the Examiner’s statement of the rejection paints with a broad
brush in making the anticipation rejection and we are left to speculate as to
the precise details of how each argued claim limitation is expressly or
inherently described by the portions of Bayne identified by the Examiner.
We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial
examination. Moreover, it is our view that the more rigorous requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 102 essentially require a one-for-one mapping of each argued
limitation to the corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner
must identify with particularity.
Therefore, we find the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case
that Baynes’ anticipates Appellant’s claims. Because Appellants have
shown at least one error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach the
merits of Appellants’ other arguments. For the reasons discussed above, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15.

Appeal 2011-004656
Application 11/855,184

6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 is
reversed.

REVERSED

kis