Ex Parte Beaudoin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2010

10391809 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LUC BEAUDOIN,
SUZANNE ROCHFORD,
and BRIAN BEATON
____________

Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 27-77, which are all of the remaining claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
27. A method of displaying a telecommunications
network comprising a plurality of network elements
interconnected with links, the method comprising:

displaying in a first window a first portion of the
telecommunications network, the first portion comprising a first
network element and a first link bundle representing a plurality
of links for interconnecting the first network clement with at
least one other network element that is not part of the first
portion;

upon selection of the first link bundle, displaying in the
first window information for each link of the first link bundle
and displaying a follow-link option;

upon selection of the information for a given link of the
first link bundle, and upon selection of the follow-link option,
displaying a second portion of the telecommunications network
comprising a particular network element of the at least one
other network element, the particular network element being
interconnected to the first network element via the given link,
the second portion further comprising a second link bundle
representing the given link together with at least one other link;
and

upon displaying the second portion, indicating in a same
window as the second portion that the second portion was
entered by the second link bundle via the given link.
Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

3

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 27-77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Appellants’ admitted prior art found on pages 1-7 of the
Specification and Chen (US 6,981,228 B1).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Appellants’ admitted prior art and Chen teaches “upon
displaying the second portion, indicating in a same window as the second
portion that the second portion was entered by the second link bundle via the
given link” as recited in claim 27?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA)
1. AAPA teaches a network topology of a geographic or logical
structure of a network that is incorporated into a network administration
graphical user interface (GUI). The structure of the network is represented
by displaying network element (NE) icons and link lines representing links
which carry signals between the NEs. Spec. 2:23 - 3:3.
2. A link bundle line can be used to represent a link bundle of
multiple links that carry signals between a pair of NEs. When a network
administrator selects the link bundle line, information for each of the links
contained in the bundle is displayed in a tabular format. Spec. 3:19 - 4:21.
3. An off-page connector icon indicates an inter-group link from a
first NE group that is displayed to a second NE group that is not displayed.
Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

4
Upon selecting the off-page connector icon, the GUI displays the network
topology of the second NE group, either in a separate window or in the same
window. Spec. 6:27 - 7:2.
Chen
4. Chen relates to interactive topology graphs for visualization and
characterization of SONET consumption patterns. Title; Abstract.
5. Figure 3 of Chen shows a screen shot that can be used to
indicate a current condition of a SONET ring on the display of a monitoring
system. The screen 100 is divided into a SONET ring area 102, a link area
104, and a node area 106. Col. 3, ll. 29-35.
6. In the example of Figure 3, node N1 of ring configuration 110
is selected. Link information for the selected node is provided in a series of
columns in link area 104. Col. 4, ll. 8-21.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the combination of AAPA and Chen teaches
“upon displaying the second portion, indicating in a same window as the
second portion that the second portion was entered by the second link bundle
Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

5
via the given link” as recited in claim 27. In particular, the Examiner finds
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have the selected link that spawns
the new window still be the selected link when the new window was opened
as taught by the AAPA. The Examiner also finds that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified the AAPA to include the topology panel and
a link information panel in the same window as taught by Chen. Ans. 4-6,
18-19.
However, claim 27 does not recite “the selected link that spawns a
new window is still the selected link when the new window was opened.”
Nor does the claim recite “the topology panel and a link information panel
are included in the same window.” The rejection does not identify any
portion of the AAPA or Chen that teaches or suggests indicating that the
second portion was entered by the second link bundle via the given link.
The AAPA teaches that when a network administrator selects a link
bundle line, information for each of the links contained in the bundle is
displayed in a tabular format. FF 2. The AAPA further teaches that an off-
page connector icon indicates an inter-group link from a displayed NE group
to a second NE group that is not displayed. Upon selecting the off-page
connector icon, the GUI displays the network topology of the second NE
group, either in a separate window or in the same window. FF 3. However,
these sections of the AAPA, which were cited in the rejection, do not teach
“indicating in a same window as the second portion that the second portion
was entered by the second link bundle via the given link.”
The Examiner is correct in stating that Chen teaches displaying a
topology panel and a link information panel in one window. FF 6.
However, Chen displays an entire SONET ring in one screen shot. FF 4-5.
Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

6
Chen does not use multiple displays to navigate from one portion of the
network to another. Therefore, Chen cannot teach indicating from where the
second portion of the network was entered.
Thus, even when the AAPA and Chen are combined, the rejection
fails to show teaching or suggestion of the claim 27 feature, “upon
displaying the second portion, indicating in a same window as the second
portion that the second portion was entered by the second link bundle via the
given link.” Independent claims 38, 39, 40, 52, 53, 54, 64, 65, 66, 76, and
77 each contain a similar limitation as claim 27 for which the rejection fails.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 27-77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Appellants’ admitted prior art and Chen teaches “upon
displaying the second portion, indicating in a same window as the second
portion that the second portion was entered by the second link bundle via the
given link” as recited in claim 27.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 27-77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the AAPA and Chen is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-004985
Application 10/391,809

7

msc

SMART & BIGGAR
P.O. BOX 2999, STATION D
900-55 METCALFE STREET
OTTAWA ON K1P 5Y6 CA CANADA