Ex Parte Armstead et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2012

11173286 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 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.
11/173,286 06/30/2005 Thomas Michael Armstead ROC920050194US1 6014
46797 7590 05/08/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
VU, TRISHA U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS MICHAEL ARMSTEAD,
ELDON GALE NELSON, PAUL EMERY SCHARDT, and
COREY VIRGIL SWENSON
____________________

Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-8, and 10-19. Appellants' Notice of Appeal, filed on August 9, 2007,
"appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences from the decision
of the Examiner." The Appeal Brief, filed on December 12, 2007, states
"the final rejections of claims 4-7 and 12-15 are appealed." Therefore, we
limit our review to claims 4-7 and 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). With any further prosecution of the present application, the
Examiner should cancel the non-appealed claims upon return of the case to
the Examiner.
We affirm.

The claims are directed to graphical verification tool for a packet-
based interconnect bus. Claims 1, 3, and 4, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of validating communications between devices
over an interconnect bus, comprising:

monitoring the interconnect bus to detect bus events;

capturing the bus events in a trace log of standardized
trace output;

parsing the standardized trace output to identify bus
transactions; and

displaying, to a user, at least some of the identified bus
transactions in a graphical user interface,

wherein the standardized trace output comprises
extensible Markup Language (XML) code.
Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
3

3. The method of claim 1, wherein bus transactions
comprise the exchange of data packets.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein displaying at least some
of the identified bus transactions in the graphical user interface
comprises:

displaying a limited portion of information contained in a
data packet; and

in response to a request from the user, displaying an
additional portion of information contained in the data packet.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Roberts
Gros
Huang
US 6,868,528 B2
US 7,024,508 B2
US 7,053,901 B2
Mar. 15, 2005
Apr. 4, 2006
May 30, 2006
Furukawa JP 08-339282 A Dec. 1996

REJECTIONS BY THE EXAMINER
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 10-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gros and Roberts.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gros, Roberts, and Furukawa.
Claims 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gros and Huang.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gros, Huang, and Roberts.

Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
4

OPINION

ANALYSIS
Appellants merely set forth arguments with respect to dependent
claims 4, 5, and 7 and presents no arguments to any independent claim.
Rather than remand the application to have Appellants cancel the un-
appealed claims (Ex Parte Ghuman (Decided: May 1, 2008),
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/prec/rm081175.pdf) and
rewrite the dependent claims in independent form, we will treat dependent
claims 4, 5 and 7 as if they were written in independent format including all
the limitations of parent claims. For example, we will treat dependent claim
4 as if it includes limitations of parent claims 1 and 3. We will then address
Appellants' arguments in this respect.
Appellants argue that the citation made by the Examiner discloses
detecting data, but fails to disclose selectively "displaying a limited portion
of information contained in a data packet and in response to a request from
the user, displaying an additional portion of information contained in the
data packet," as claimed in dependent claim 4. (App. Br. 12). The
Examiner maintains that the teachings of Gros in figures 10 (a)-(c) teach
different groupings of data and display thereof while figure 11 of Gros
teaches collecting different portions of the data or display. (Ans. 11-13).
We agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and the interpretation of
the Gros reference. Therefore, we find Appellants' argument unavailing, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4 and claims 12 and 13
grouped therewith.
Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
5
With respect to dependent claim 5, Appellants argue that Gros, in
view of Roberts fails to teach, "in response to a request from the user,
reorganizing packets graphically represented in the graphical user interface,"
as recited in claims 5 and 14. (App. Br. 13). We disagree with Appellants
and find that Appellants have not identified any express definition or
interpretation for "reorganizing packets graphically represented in the
graphical user interface" (Claim 5) since all data in the user interface is
considered graphical in the graphical user interfaces for visualizing the
output (Gros col. 11 and Roberts Abstract). We find that the claimed
limitation reads on the multiple views of the Gros reference. Therefore,
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness of dependent claim 5 and dependent claim 14 grouped
therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Appellants contend that the
Examiner provides no motivation to combine Furukawa with Gros and
Roberts. (App. Br. 13-14). Appellants contend that Furukawa teaches
displaying states of peripheral devices with different color at all times which
is not representing with a color a state of a device at the time a
corresponding packet was sent. (App. Br. 14). We find Appellants'
argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Furthermore, we find the Examiner has set forth a line of reasoning for the
combination in the Answer at pages 8-9 and 14-15. Appellants have not
shown error in the proffered line of reasoning and merely repeating the
claim language is not a specific argument for patentability to distinguish the
claimed invention. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2010-001173
Application 11/173,286
6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
4-7 and 12-14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7 and 12-
14 is affirmed. The Examiner should cancel the non-appealed claims 1, 3,
8, 10, 11, and 15-19 upon return of the case to the Examiner.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

tkl