Ex Parte Jiang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

10288225 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BAOFENG JIANG, JEROLD D. OSATO, WU XIDONG,
and RAGHBENDRA G. SAVOOR
____________________

Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,2251
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 3, 2010
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is SBC Properties, L.P.
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to a user interface to a network
operations support system (Spec. 1). The user interface includes a first level
interface organized by data communications network technology area and a
second level interface grouped by operational function (Spec. 2).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A user interface to a network operations support system, the user
interface comprising
a first level interface organized by data communications network
technology area, the first level interface identifying a plurality of different
data communications network technologies;
a second level interface grouped by operational function, each
operational function including a summary view and a detailed functional
view, the second level interface identifying a plurality of different
operational functions; and
wherein each summary view is organized as a drill down view based
on a set of view detail levels.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Brandau US 6,111, 561 Aug. 29, 2000
Gilbert US 6,205,495 B1 Mar. 20, 2001
Dowd US 2002/0078131 A1 Jun. 20, 2002
Weisser, Jr. US 2002/0087671 A1 Jul. 4, 2002
Jackson US 2002/0152305 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Raymond US 2002/0158899 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
2
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Raymond.
Claims 2-4, 10-12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Brandau, Dowd, and Weisser.
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raymond in view of Gilbert.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raymond in view of Jackson.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed August 11, 2006), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
January 9, 2007) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 26,
2007) for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that Raymond does not teach a first level interface
organized by data communications network technology area.2 Appellants
argue that Raymond generally teaches “a system that produces customized
views of network information for network administrators,” but not “how to
organize the views” (App. Br. 5). Conversely, the Examiner finds that
paragraphs [0015] and [0017] of Raymond teach, either expressly or
inherently, an interface organized by network technology area (Ans. 12).

2 Appellant’s arguments present additional issues that we do not address,
because this issue is considered dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Raymond teaches a first level
interface, or view, organized by data communications network technology
area?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, they have invented a user interface
design for telecommunications systems. In one embodiment, the user
interface includes a first level interface organized by data communications
network technology area and a second level interface grouped by operational
function (Spec. 1-2).
Raymond
2. Raymond teaches a service information portal (SIP) for
providing customer-based management information of networked computing
environments (¶ 0015).
3. The invention extracts from relevant computing environment
entities specified information for managing the outsourced computing
environment. The information is presented on a customized display for
consideration and interaction by the network administrator (¶ 0015).
4. Figures 12A-12C of Raymond illustrates a portal view display
in accordance with one embodiment of the invention (¶ 0039).
4
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
“It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the
claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it. Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Inherency, however,
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 Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.
5
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, AND 17-19
Claim 1 recites a user interface comprising a first level interface
organized by data communications network technology area. Claim 9
recites a method of displaying data, comprising displaying a first level view
organized by data communications network technology area. Claim 17
recites a user interface comprising a first level view identifying a plurality of
network technologies and organized by network technology area.
The Examiner finds that Raymond teaches a first level interface, or
first level view, organized by data communications network technology area,
citing paragraphs 0015 and 0017 of Raymond (Ans. 4). According to the
Examiner, paragraph 0015 discloses that the invention enables service
providers to customize an in-depth view of a network; therefore, a user may
set the first level of the in-depth view, and paragraph 0017 discloses that the
user may set the first level of extensible portal view profiles to be entities,
technologies, applications, or protocols (Ans. 12).
Appellants argue that the paragraphs cited by the Examiner generally
teach a system that produces customized views of network information for
network administrators, but do not teach how to organize the views (App.
Br. 5). Appellants point out that the cited passages do not disclose specific
information identified by the view, and instead teach that information
identified by the view is customized for each administrator (App. Br. 6).
We find Appellants’ position persuasive to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection. We agree with Appellants that the pertinent
paragraphs of Raymond (¶¶ 0015 and 0017) do not disclose specific
information identified by the information portal view (FF 3). Figures 12A-
6
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

12C provide illustrations of a portal view profile according to one
embodiment of Raymond (FF 4); however, we find that Figures 12A-12C
also do not teach an interface or view organized by data communications
network technology area. The content of paragraphs 0015 and 0017 can at
best be said to suggest that a customized display for a network administrator
could be organized by data communications network technology area, but
mere possibilities or probabilities are insufficient to support an argument
that an element is inherently disclosed. See In re Robertson, supra.
We find that the Examiner has failed to show that every element of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is disclosed by Raymond. Therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 17-19 under
§ 102 as anticipated by Raymond.
CLAIMS 2-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, AND 20
As noted supra, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 17 as anticipated by Raymond. We have reviewed Brandau, Dowd,
Wiesser, Gilbert, and Jackson, and find that they do not supply a teaching of
a first level interface or view organized by data communications network
technology area, which we found absent from Raymond. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 20 under
§ 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 102 rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 17, supra.

CONCLUSION
Raymond fails to teach a first level interface, or view, organized by
data communications network technology area.
7
Appeal 2008-001255
Application 10/288,225

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINISTER, NJ 07921
8