Ex Parte MISERENDINO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13905960 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/905,960 05/30/2013
109501 7590 10/01/2018
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SCOTT B. MISERENDINO
LLP and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NG(MS)021339 US ORD 3721
EXAMINER
ZALALEE, SULTANA MARCIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT B. MISERENDINO,
DAVID MORSBERGER, WILLIAM E. FREEMAN, and
CHRISTOPHER CHARLES VALENTIN0 1
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
Technology Center 2600
Before: BARBARA A. BENOIT, JOHN R. KENNY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 10, 16-18, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, and 38--40, which constitute all
pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Northrop Grumann Corp. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
SPECIFICATION
The Specification describes a system for generating contextual
visualizations of IP-space. Spec. ,r 2. The described system includes map
modules for generating a hierarchical network map, which includes a
treemap with a plurality of leaf nodes. Id. at ,r 9.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
27. A system comprising:
a memory to store computer-executable instructions; and
a processor to access the memory and execute the
computer-executable instructions to:
receive map data comprising a list of internet
protocol (IP) addresses in an IP space and a user-defined
hierarchical representation of an organizational structure,
wherein the hierarchical representation comprises at least
two levels;
identify a plurality of subnets, wherein the
plurality of subnets contain each of the IP addresses
within the list of IP addresses;
define a lowest level of a hierarchy represented by
the hierarchical representation comprising the plurality of
subnets;
define a penultimate level of the hierarchy
represented by the hierarchical representation defined by
a higher-level identifier based on the user-defined
hierarchical representation;
create a treemap based on the lowest level of the
hierarchy and the penultimate level of the hierarchy to
represent the IP addresses in the organizational structure,
wherein the treemap is generated in a virtual two-
dimensional space using a treemap algorithm; and
provide a visualization output of the treemap
scaled from the virtual two dimensional space.
2
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
Smith
Kantorova
REFERENCES
US 2004/0263513 Al Dec. 30, 2004
US 2011/0004633 Al Jan. 6, 2011
Barrera, "Security visualization tools and IPv6 addresses,"
6th International Workshop on Visualization for Cyber Security,
October 2009, 21-26.
Mansmann, Visual Analysis of Network Traffic-Interactive
Monitoring, Detection, and Interpretation of Security Threats,
Ph.D. thesis, University of Konstanz, June 13, 2008.
REJECTIONS
Claims 10, 16, 18, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, and 38--40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Barrera,
Kantorova, and Mansmann. Final Act. 3.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Barrera, Kantorova, Mansmann, and Smith. Final
Act. 13.
OPINION
Claim 27
The Examiner finds that Barrera teaches all limitations of claim 27,
except the limitations that (i) the recited hierarchical representation of the
organizational structure is user defined and (ii) the treemap is generated in a
virtual two-dimensional space. Final Act. 3-5. For the former limitation,
the Examiner finds that Kantorova teaches a hierarchy management
application that enables a user to define and maintain a single, unified
hierarchy. Id. at 5---6. To support that finding, Examiner cites paragraph 27
of Kantorova, which reads in pertinent part: "hierarchy management
application 106 can enable a user 102 to define and maintain a single,
3
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
unified hierarchy that represents the organizational structure of an
enterprise." Id.; Kantorova ,r 27. The Examiner finds that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would apply Kantorova's teaching to Barrera by extending
Barrera's treemap to include a user-defined hierarchy as additional upper
layers. Final Act. 6. According to the Examiner, Mansmann teaches the
extension of an IP address hierarchy by two additional geographic classes
and teaches or suggests generating a treemap in virtual two-dimensional
space. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner finds the combination of these three
references teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 27. Id. at 3-7.
Appellants argue that Kantorova does not teach or suggest a user-
defined hierarchy. App. Br. 6-8. Appellants assert that Kantorova's
hierarchical structure is predefined, limiting its users to moving nodes within
that hierarchy. Id. at 7. And Appellants argue that no ordinarily skilled
artisan would read paragraph 27 of Kantorova as teaching a user-defined
hierarchy. Id. Appellants further assert that Kantorova's user is confined to
populating Kantorova's single unified hierarchy. Id. at 8. In contrast,
Appellants argue "claim 27 sets forth a user-defined hierarchical
representation of an organizational structure that can be re-defined by the
user." Id.
The Examiner responds that paragraph 27 of Kantorova teaches a
user-defined hierarchy. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner also indicates that moving
nodes within a hierarchy would result in a new hierarchy that would be user-
defined. Id. Further, the Examiner indicates that having a user re-define the
hierarchical structure is not a limitation recited in claim 27 and that such a
limitation would not have support in the Specification. Id. at 7.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge that Kantorova sets forth
a user-defined hierarchy. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue, however, that
4
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
Kantorova's user-defined hierarchy is a single unified hierarchy that is not
equivalent to the treemap representation recited in claim 27. Id. Further,
Appellants argue that Kantorova's hierarchy is not re-definable by the user
for different organizational structures as recited in claim 27. Id. at 3.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kantorova teaches or
suggests a user defined hierarchy and are not persuaded by Appellants'
contrary arguments. First, Appellants concede in the Reply Brief, paragraph
27 ofKantorova teaches a user-defined hierarchy. Reply Br. 2. And we
agree with that concession. As noted above, paragraph 27 states: "hierarchy
management application 106 can enable a user 102 to define and maintain a
single, unified hierarchy that represents the organizational structure of an
enterprise." Kantorova ,r 27 ( emphasis added).
Second, although Appellants assert that they are not impermissibly
attacking Kantorova individually when they argue that Kantorova does not
have the treemap representation of claim 27, we disagree, for the Examiner
did not rely on Kantorova for the treemap representation of claim 27. Ans.
4--5; Reply Br. 2. Further, Appellants have not persuasively explained why
the combination of teachings that the Examiner actually relies on for the
treemap representation and a user-defined hierarchy would not teach or
suggest those limitations.
Third, as the Examiner states, claim 27 does not require that its user-
defined hierarchy be re-definable. Ans. 7. And, even after the Examiner
made this statement, Appellants have not identified any claim language of
claim 27 that sets forth such a requirement. Reply Br. 2. Moreover, even if
claim 27 had such a requirement, Appellants have not explained why
Kantorova' s disclosure of having a user move a department node between
5
Appeal2018-002307
Application 13/905,960
locations in its hierarchy would not redefine Kantorova's hierarchy.
Kantorova ,r 29.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 31.
Claims 10, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, and 38-40
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 10, 16, 18, 28, 30,
32-34, 36, and 38--40 as for claim 27. App. Br. 9-12. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 10, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, and 38--40.
Claim 17
Appellants present the same arguments for claim 1 7 as for claim 2 7.
App. Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 10, 16-18, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 36,
and 38--40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6