Ex Parte Battat et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

09949101 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte REUVEN BATTAT, MICHAEL HER, CHANDRASEKHA
SUNDARESH, ANDERS VINBERG, and SIDNEY WANG
____________

Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THOMAS, and MACDONALD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 6-10, 13-18, and 20-26. The
Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

2
INVENTION
The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
A network management system allows a network
administrator to intuitively manage all components of a
heterogeneous networked computer system using views of any
component or any set of components. These views are
generated in a multi-dimensional, virtual reality environment.
Navigation tools are provided that allow an operator to travel
through the network hierarchy's representation in the virtual
environment using an automatic flight mode. . . . Since the
system is capable of managing a world-wide network, city,
building, subnet, segment, and computer, a view may also
display internal hardware, firmware, and software of any
network component. Views of network components may be
filtered so only components pertaining to a specific business or
other interest are displayed.
(Abstract.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
20. A system, comprising:
a server operable to store one or more event notifications
from one or more components in a networked computer system;
a workstation communicatively coupled to the server and
operable to:
determine a list of visible objects in a scene,
wherein at least a portion of the visible objects are
components in a networked computer system;
filter the list of visible objects based at least in part
on a business interest selected by a user;
determine a position and orientation of at least one
visible object from the filtered list;
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

3
determine a model for the at least one visible
object based on the position and orientation of the at least
one visible object;
determine whether the at least one visible object is
to be displayed within a predetermined visualization
range;
if the at least one visible object is not within the
predetermined visualization range, hide a status indicator
associated with the at least one visible object;
render the model for the at least one visible object;
and
render a status indicator representing an aggregate
status of the at least one visible object and at least one
related object in the networked computer system,
wherein the aggregate status is based at least in part on
two or more alerts that are weighted according to
importance.

REJECTIONS
Claims 6-9, 13-15, 18, 20-23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,812,750 ("Dev");
U.S. Patent No. 6,008,820 ("Chauvion"); and U.S. Patent No.
5,233,687("Henderson").
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dev; Chauvion; Henderson; and Aurel A. Lazar et. al.,
Exploiting Virtual Reality for Network Management, pp. 979-983.
("Lazar").
Claims 16-17 and 24-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dev; Chauvion; Henderson; and U.S. Patent No.
5,495,607 ("Pisello").
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

4
DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 6-9, 13-15, and 20-23 on the basis of claim 20; claims 18 and 26 on
the basis of claim 26; claim 10 individually; and claims 16, 17, 24, and 25
on the basis of claim 25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, the
issues before us follow.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Dev filters a list of visible objects
based at least in part on a business interest selected by a user and represents
aggregate status based at least in part on two or more alerts, as required by
representative claim 20?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Dev responds to a command to
navigate closer to at least one visible object by rendering at least one internal
component of the object and responds to a command to navigate further
from the object by hiding at least one components of the object, as required
by representative claim 26?
Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been necessary in
Lazar to determine whether an automatic flight mode property has been set,
as required by claim 10?
Did the Examiner err in combining teachings of Pisello with teachings
of Dev, Chauvion, and Henderson to reject representative claim 25? We
address the issues seriatim.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM 20
We find that Dev "relates to systems for management of 20 computer
networks . . . ." (Col. 1, ll. 20-21.) "The major components of the network-
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

5
management system are a user interface 10, a virtual network machine 12,
and a device communication manager 14." (Col. 3, ll. 48-50.)
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted).
Here, we agree with the Examiner's following findings.
Dev, in Col. 12 Line 42-Col. 13 Line 14, teaches filtering the
list of visible objects based upon the user clicking (selecting) on
a portion of the view of network. For example, when the view
is of a city, the user would click on a building, and the view
would change to showing the network elements in that building.
(Ans. 10.)
More specifically, the following disclosure of Dev supports these
findings.
The network management system provides multiple
views, including location views, topological views and generic
views, of the network. . . . The location and topological views
are organized in a hierarchical manner. By clicking on
specified elements of a view, the user can obtain a view of the
next lower level in the hierarchy. As used herein, "clicking"
refers to using the mouse to move the cursor to a specified
location on the display screen and then depressing the mouse
button.
In the location views, the highest level may show a map
of the world with network locations indicated thereon.
Intermediate views may show a map of a country or a region,
while lower level views may show the floor plan of a building
or room that contains network devices. At the lowest level, the
user may obtain a pictorial view of an individual device.
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

6
(Col. 12, ll. 42-58.) We also agree with the Examiner's finding that
"[b]ecause the interest of Dev is to manage a network, zooming in and
showing the network elements inside of a building is 'a business
interest'." (Ans. 10.) The first sentence of Dev that we cited supra,
supports the finding that managing computer networks is Dev's business
interest.
The Appellants make the following argument.
By equating the network devices displayed in Dev with both the
"components in a networked computer system" in Claim 20 and
the "business interest selected by a user" in Claim 20, the
Examiner improperly treats the "business interest selected by a
user" as being indistinct from the "components in a networked
computer system" in Claim 20.
(Reply Br. 3.)
"During prosecution . . . the PTO gives claims their 'broadest
reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, claim 20 does not require its "components in a networked
computer system" and "business interest selected by a user" to be mutually
exclusive from one another. Furthermore, when a user selects the lowest
level view of a device in a computer network, the view excludes other
components of the network. Consequently, the business interest and the
other components are distinct. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner
did not err in finding that Dev filters a list of visible objects based at least in
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

7
part on a business interest selected by a user, as required by representative
claim 20.
We agree with the Examiner's additional, following findings.
Dev teaches in Col. 8 Lines 5-13 and 25-34 that the an [sic]
alarm log for each selects the most severe alarm for displaying.
In order to select the most severe alarm, the alarms must have
been "weighted" by severity. And further, by displaying the
most severe alarm, the user is informed of an aggregate status in
that the user knows that all the alarms are no worse than the
alarm which is displayed.
(Ans. 12.)
The Appellants argue that "the 'most severe alarm' for a particular
model in Dev is not an 'aggregate status ... based at least in part on two or
more alerts' as recited in Claim 20." (Emphasis added)." (Reply Br. 4.)
Dev teaches that "[w]hen an alarm event occurs in a model, a notice of
the alarm event is sent to an alarm log . . . . The alarm log selects the most
severe alarm for each model which is registering an alarm." (Col. 8, 11. 25-
28). We find that selecting the most severe alarm for a model would have
suggested the existence of more than one alarm for the model. Therefore,
we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Dev represents an
aggregate status based at least in part on two or more alerts, as required by
representative claim 20.

Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

8
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM 26
The Examiner makes the following additional findings.
Dev clearly teaches, which respect to figures 7A-7C, that when
a user clicks an object in the scene, the scene "moves towards
the object" (i.e. Fig. 7B to Fig. 7C) by changing to a view of
that object and its internal components, and when going from a
view of the lower level to a higher level (i.e. Fig. 7C to
Fig. 7B), the scene "moves away from the object", and the
internal components of the object would no longer be
displayed.
(Ans. 13-14.)
"Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de
novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue . . . the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations
omitted).
Here, although the Appellants filed a reply brief, they chose not to
address the aforementioned findings. We will not unilaterally review these
uncontested findings. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err
in finding Dev responds to a command to navigate closer to at least one
visible object by rendering at least one internal component of the object and
responds to a command to navigate further from the object by hiding at least
one components of the object, as required by representative claim 26.

Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

9
CLAIM 10
The Examiner admits that "Dev, Chauvin and Henderson do not teach
the additional limitation of claim 10." (Ans. 9.) We agree with the
Appellants, moreover, that "[i]n his answer, the Examiner seems to
acknowledge that Lazar does not expressly disclose this element of
Claim 10." (Reply Br. 6.) The Examiner concludes that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the automatic
flight property had been set before going into flight mode because it would
be necessary step [sic] to implement the user's intentions regarding how the
system should operate." (Ans. 9.)
Because the Examiner finds that determining whether the automatic
flight property had been set before going into flight mode would have been
"necessary," the resulting conclusion seems to be based on the concept of
inherency. "To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear
that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quoting Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)). "Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA
1981) (citing Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (1939)).
Here, we agree with the Appellants' following argument.
"'[D]etermining whether an automatic flight mode property has
been set" would not necessarily have been a step in Lazar's
system. For example, if Lazar's system was configured to
navigate only by "flying over" a scene, then Lazar's system
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

10
would not necessarily perform the step of "determining whether
an automatic flight mode property has been set" as recited in
Claim 10. Therefore, the Examiner's assertion that "it would be
[a] necessary step" is incorrect.
(Reply Br. 6.) Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding
that it would have been necessary in Lazar to determine whether an
automatic flight mode property has been set, as required by claim 10.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM 25
The Examiner's finding that "Pisello in Col. 22 paragraph 1" (Ans. 9)
evidences a status indicator based on the number of users associated with a
computer was "commonly displayed server status information" (id. at 15)
used "to track and display in a network environment" (id. at 9) is
uncontested. More specifically, the reference teaches that "information
regarding the status of each server may be displayed at the same time (e.g.,
up and running, shutdown, length of up/down time, number of users,
workload level, etc.)" (Col. 22, ll. 5-8 (emphasis added).)
The Appellants argue, however, that "[t]he Examiner has not shown
any particular reason for modifying the system in Dev to specifically include
the status information (e.g., 'number of users . . . ") recited in Pisello."
(Reply Br. 15.)
The presence or absence of a reason "to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact." In re Gartside, 203
F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A reason to combine
teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings
within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those
skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS
Appeal 2009-011165
Application 09/949,101

11
Gaming Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Pisello's display of
the number of users associated with a computer "at the time of invention,
was of interest in a network management environment, such as the system of
Dev." (Ans. 15.) It's being of interest would have provided reason to
combine this teaching with Dev's teachings of a network management
system. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in combining
teachings of Pisello with teachings of Dev, Chauvion, and Henderson to
reject representative claim 25.

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 20, 25, and 26 those of claims 6-9,
13-18, and 21-24, which fall therewith.
We reverse the rejection of claim 10.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Affirmed-In-Part

tkl