Ex Parte Clark et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2006

09606383 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte QUENTIN J. CLARK, LARA N. DILLINGHAM, JUSTIN GRANT, BOYD
C. MULTERER, ORI M. AMIGA, KENT S. SCHLIITER, ROGER W. SPRAGUE,
ALEXANDER M. SUTTON, and DANIEL T. TRAVISON
__________

Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383
___________

ON BRIEF1
___________

Before KRASS, MACDONALD, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent
Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1 through 48, all of which are pending
in this application.
We affirm.

1 Appellants’ attendance at the Oral Hearing set for November 19, 2006 was
waived in a fax communication received on September 22, 2006.
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to a user interface
(40) for managing and displaying a collection of entities (20)
(e.g. independent servers) operating as a single entity (30).
First, the interface (40) displays a representation of the
collection of entities (20a, 20b, 20c, 20d) as a single entity
(30) in such a way that when an action is performed on the
collection of entities, the action is propagated to the
collection of members. Further, the interface also displays a
representation of each individual member of each entity in such a
way that when an action is performed on an individual member
associated with an entity, the action is then directed to the
individual member.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced as follows:
1. A user interface to display and manage a plurality of
entities as if a single entity, comprising:

a representation of a collection of members as a single
entity, and

an individual representation of each member associated with
the entity;

Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

3
wherein if an action is performed on the representation of
the collection of members, then the action is propagated to the
collection of members, if the action is performed on the
representation of the member associated with the entity, then the
action is directed to the member.

References
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Bradley et al. (Bradley) 6,584,507 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed on Mar. 24, 1999)

Chin et al. (Chin) 6,456,306 Sep. 24, 2002
(filed on Jun. 8, 1995)

Pettigrew 6,456,300 Sep. 24, 2002
(filed on Mar. 31, 1999)

Richardson 6,271,845 Aug. 7, 2001
(filed on Mar. 10, 2000)

Manghirmalami et al. 5,819,028 Oct. 6, 1998
(Manghirmalami)

Rejections at Issue
A. Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 21, 23 through 25 and 31
through 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Chin.
B. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chin and Richardson.
C. Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chin and
Manghirmalami.
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

4
D. Claims 27 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chin and Bradley.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs2
and the Examiner’s Answer3. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been taken into consideration. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)
(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration Appellants’ arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.

2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on January 5, 2005. Appellants filed a
Reply Brief on June 3, 2005.
3 The Examiner mailed a corrected Examiner’s Answer on April 18, 2006. The
Examiner mailed an office communication on August 25, 2005 stating that the
Reply Brief has been entered and considered.
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

5
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 21, 23
through 25 and 31 through 48 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chin. We also agree with the
Examiner that claims 6 and 8 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chin
and Richardson. We further agree with the Examiner that claims 22
and 26 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chin and Manghirmalami.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that claims 27 through
30 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chin and Bradley.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1
through 48 for the reasons provided in the Examiner’s Answer, as
further expanded upon in this opinion, and for the reasons set
forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7, 9 through 21, 23 through 25 and 31 through 48
as Being Anticipated By Chin Proper?

It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

6
the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Chin reference does not
disclose the limitation of propagating an action to the members
of a collection when said action is performed on a representation
of the collection of members. Particularly, at pages 4 and 5 of
the Appeal Brief, Appellants state that “while Chin et al.
discloses viewing members of a collection (Figs. 3 and 6), it
does not disclose propagating an action to a collection of
members if an action is performed on a representation of the
collection of members as in the claimed invention.”
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that representative
claim 1 reads in part as follows:
[I]f an action is performed on the representation
of the collection of members, then the action is
propagated to the collection of members.

Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

7
At page 9, lines 6 through 18, Appellants’ specification
states the following:
Alternatively, the user interface enables
individual performance to be monitored from any of the
displays 34a through 34e by selecting a particular
member from a context menu (not shown) as will be
described in more detail below. Furthermore, entity
configurations may be modified from any of the user
interfaces 40 by enabling the user to provide input to
the interface and thereby distribute resultant
modifications throughout the entity 30. This may be
achieved for example, by providing the user input to
the controller described above wherein the controller
may then distribute the modified configuration
throughout the entity 30. It is to be appreciated that
other distribution systems may be provided. For
example, rather than have entity resources centrally
distributed and aggregated at the controller,
individual members 20a-20d may share a master file
(e.g., XML) describing the resources and content of
each member. As new members are added to the entity
30, the resources and content may be
distributed/received from any of the members 20a-20d
according to the mater file.

Thus, representative claim 1 does require propagating an
action to the members of a collection when said action is
performed on a representation of the collection of members.
Now, the question before us is what Chin would have taught
to one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer this question, we
find the following facts:
At column 2, lines 27 through 49, Chin states the following:
With reference to FIG. 1, the Enterprise Command
Center logically divides the network devices and
objects of an enterprise network into a plurality of
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

8
sites, for example, sites 101 (a), 101(b) and 101(c).
As illustrated in FIG. 3, the network manager, using
the Enterprise Command Center graphical user interface
(GUI), obtains better visibility of the network from
the site level down to the device level within a single
window 300. By selecting a site at site pane 310, the
network manager is then able to select a particular
type of device or object folder, e.g., a hub folder,
from resources pane 320. Selecting a folder from
resources pane 320 displays all network devices of the
type indicated by that folder, e.g., of the type hub,
at the contents pane 330. This visibility into the
network allows the network manager to quickly navigate
to a particular network device or object according to
device type to initiate configuration, performance,
fault, and security management tasks. A cursor control
device such as a mouse may be used to click and drag a
network device icon from contents pane 330 and drop the
icon on one of a number of tool icons available in the
tools bar 340 to initiate, or launch, one of the
aforesaid tasks represented by the tool icon.

With the above discussion in mind, we find that with
regard to representative claim 1, the Chin reference teaches a
method for allowing a user to concurrently display within a single
window (300) the health statuses of all network devices within a
computer network. Particularly, Chin teaches a graphical user
interface (GUI), wherein network devices are depicted to be grouped
by categories in different folders (310, 320). Chin further
teaches that upon the network manager’s selection of a folder to
display a corresponding category (e.g. HUB), the GUI displays the
individual network devices (300) within the specified category to
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

9
thereby ‘allow the user to obtain a better visibility of the
network from the site level down to the device level within a
single window’. It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the present invention would have readily found
that Chin’s teaching of displaying the individual network devices
within a category selected to be viewed amounts to the claimed
limitation of propagating to the members of a collection an action
performed on a representation of the collection of members. The
ordinarily skilled artisan would have duly recognized that the
action that the Chin reference suggests to be performed consists in
“displaying” the selected category. Thus, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would be readily apprised of the fact that by teaching the
display of the contents (individual devices) of the selected
category to be viewed, Chin does necessarily teach propagating the
action of displaying to the individual members of the selected
category representing the collection of members. Consequently, we
do not find error in the Examiner’s stated position, which
concludes that Chin teaches the limitation of propagating an action
to the members of a collection when said action is performed on a
representation of the collection of members. It is therefore our
view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

10
would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the
invention as set forth in claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 21, 23
through 25 and 31 through 48. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 21, 23 through 25
and 31 through 48.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 6 and 8 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chin and Richardson
Proper?

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the examiner must not
only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

11
the findings are deemed to support the examiner’s conclusion.
However, a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the
relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly
in the prior art, as the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may
be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly
stated in the references. The test for an implicit showing is
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006) citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357,
1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

12
With respect to claims 6 and 8, Appellants argue in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs that the combination of Chin and
Richardson does not teach claimed invention. Particularly,
Appellants assert that Chin does not teach the limitation of
propagating an action to the members of a collection when said
action is performed on a representation of the collection of
members. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claim 1 above, and we disagree with Appellants.
Further, Appellants argue that Richardson does not cure the
deficiencies of Chin. We find no such deficiencies in Chin for
Richardson to cure. It is therefore our view, after
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 6 and 8. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 8.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 22
and 26 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chin and
Manghirmalani Proper?

With respect to claims 22 and 26, Appellants argue in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs that the combination of Chin and
Manghirmalani does not teach claimed invention. Particularly,
Appellants assert that Chin does not teach the limitation of
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

13
propagating an action to the members of a collection when said
action is performed on a representation of the collection of
members. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claim 1 above, and we disagree with Appellants.
Further, Appellants argue that Manghirmalani does not cure the
deficiencies of Chin. We find no such deficiencies in Chin for
Manghirmalani to cure. It is therefore our view, after
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 22 and 26. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 26.
IV. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 27
through 30 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chin and
Bradley Proper?

With respect to claims 27 through 30, Appellants argue in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the combination of Chin and
Bradley does not teach claimed invention. Particularly,
Appellants assert that Chin does not teach the limitation of
propagating an action to the members of a collection when said
action is performed on a representation of the collection of
members. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claim 1 above, and we disagree with Appellants.
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

14
Further, Appellants argue that Bradley does not cure the
deficiencies of Chin. We find no such deficiencies in Chin for
Bradley to cure. It is therefore our view, after consideration
of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to the
ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims
27 through 30. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 27 through 30.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through
21, 23 through 25 and 31 through 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We
have also sustained the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6,
8, 22, 26 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we
affirm.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

15
AFFIRMED

ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JRH/ce
Appeal No. 2006-2732
Application No. 09/606,383

16
AMIN, TUROCY & CALVIN, LLP
24TH FLOOR
NATIONAL CITY CENTER
1900 EAST NINTH STREET
CLEVELAND, OH 44114