10809175 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

Ex Parte Nastacio et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 17, 2012

10809175 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte DENILSON NASTACIO, JASON CORNPROPST, CARLOS CESAR F. ARAUJO, and JOHN E. DINGER _____________ Appeal 2009-013309 Application 10/809,175 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10, and 11. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a monitoring system for networks where events are generated having common formats. See pages 3 and 4 of Appeal 2009-013309 Application 10/809,175 2 Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of generating events having a common event format, comprising: associating an event factory with a directory service; locating the event factory using the directory service; associating a content handler with the event factory; obtaining a common base event associated with the content handler; populating the common base event with source specific situation information to provide a populated base event; returning the populated base event incorporated in the content handler from the event factory to the event source; determining if a format of the populated base event conforms to a predefined event format, wherein the predefined event format is defined by the content handler; and generating a common event format representation of the populated base event based on the predefined event format if the format of the populated base event does not conform to the predefined event format. REFERENCES Natarajan US 6,584,502 B1 Jun. 24, 2003 Marwaha US 2003/0200486 Oct. 23, 2003 Appeal 2009-013309 Application 10/809,175 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Marwaha in view of Natarajan. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 4 through 8 of the Answer.1 ISSUES Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as the claimed subject matter “only converts a received event to a common event format when the received event is not already in the common event format.” Brief 4.2 This argument presents us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Marwaha in view of Natarajan teaches determining if a populated base event conforms to a predefined event format and generating a common event format of a populated based event if the populated base event does not conform to the predefined event as claimed?3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Marwaha in view of Natarajan teaches generating a common event format of a populated base event if the populated base event does not conform to the predefined event as claimed. The Examiner finds that 1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated January 22, 2009. 2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated October 30, 2008. Appeal 2009-013309 Application 10/809,175 4 Marwaha in paragraph 27 and the table that follows teaches this feature. Answer 9. Specifically, the Examiner points to Marwaha’s teaching that if a date is present it is used without reformatting. Answer 9. We concur with the finding that Marwaha teaches not reformatting a date if present and if the date is not present a date is generated. However, this teaching of Marwaha is different from what is claimed, determining if a format of a populated base event (i.e., date present event) conforms to a predefined format, and generating a common event of the populated base event if it does not. The Examiner has not shown that this feature is taught by Natarajan. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the references teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 is reversed. REVERSED tj 3 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues however we do not reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.