Ex Parte Fu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

10644948 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JENNIFER JIE FU
____________

Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for displaying a
communication network on a graphical user interface (GUI) as network
element icons having properties associated with network elements. See
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

2
generally Spec. ¶¶ 0013-14. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for enabling a user to configure a communication
network in a graphical user interface (GUI) display, comprising:
configuring at least a portion of said communication network in
said GUI display, including configuring a plurality of network
element icons representing a plurality of network elements and logical
connections among said plurality of network elements, including:
selecting a first network element icon of said plurality of
network element icons for configuring a first network element of
said plurality of network elements, said first network element
represented by said first network element icon,
ascertaining a first set of properties associated with said first
network element, said first set of properties being displayed in said
GUI display and representing properties available for said first
network element in said communication network,
associating a subset of said first set of properties with said first
network element icon, thereby causing said subset of said first set
of properties to also be associated with said first network element,
said associating a subset of said first set of properties performed by
said user, and
displaying at least one visual indicator in said GUI display,
said at least one visual indicator being displayed in a visually
connected manner with said first network element icon, said at
least one visual indicator visually indicating in said GUI display
that said subset of said first set of properties is being associated
with said first network element in said communication network.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Patterson US 2002/0052941 A1 May 2, 2002

Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 13-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 3.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Patterson. Ans. 4-9.1

THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
Regarding representative independent claim 13, the Examiner finds
that the phrase, “said plurality of network elements” in line 4, is indefinite.
Appellant has not presented any arguments2 for this rejection and has
omitted this rejection from the Grounds of Rejection to Be Reviewed section
of the Appeal Brief. See App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2-4. We thus summarily
sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14-25 for
similar reasons. See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §
1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection
will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Patterson discloses all the recited limitations. Ans. 4-5. Specifically, the

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
1, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed April 6, 2009.
2 Although the entered After-Final amendment changes “said” to – a – in
line 3, no corresponding change was made to line 4. See page 6 of the
After-Final Amendment filed December 10, 2008.
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

4
Examiner cites to Patterson’s: (1) element icon 324C, paragraphs 0053 and
0188, and Figures 3A and 4A to disclose selecting a first network element
icon for configuring a first network element; (2) paragraphs 0238-242 and
Figure 4A to disclose associating a subset of the first set of properties with
the first network element icon; and (3) label “Server1” for element icon
324C and paragraphs 0235 and 0245 to disclose displaying a visual
indicator, the visual indicator indicating in the GUI display that the subset is
being associated with the first network element.
Appellant argues that Patterson’s node status display does not disclose
configuring a first network element. App. Br. 9. Appellant further asserts
that neither Patterson’s node status display nor displaying a name within a
server icon is a visual indicator indicating in the GUI display that the subset
of the first set of properties is being associated with the first network
element. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant also contends that neither
Patterson’s displayed logical elements of a networked computer system nor
the discussion of creating or modifying server parameters maps to the recited
associating a subset of properties with the first network element icon to
cause the subset of the first set of properties to also be associated with the
first network element. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Patterson discloses:
(1) selecting a first network element icon of the network element
icons for configuring a first network element of the network elements?
(2) associating a subset of the first set of properties with the first
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

5
network element icon, thereby causing the subset to also be associated with
the first network element?
(3) displaying a visual indicator, the visual indicator visually
indicating in the GUI display that the subset of the first set of properties is
being associated with the first network element?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 4-5, 10-14.
2. Patterson discloses creating a graphical representation 314 of a
computer system’s (e.g., an IDC or server farm) logical configuration by
dragging icons (e.g., 320, 322, 324) that represent elements or nodes of the
computer system from a palette 306 into a workspace (or “MapView”) 312.
Patterson, ¶¶ 0093, 0189-194; Figs. 3A-B.
3. Patterson includes a server tier configuration dialog window 400
for configuring parameter values for each node of a server farm that is
created by dragging and dropping the icons into a workspace. The window
includes a name value (e.g., “Server1”) box 402, a Type pull-down menu
404, and a Server Count field 418. The user can create or modify the
parameters values using the boxes and menus to configure the parameter
values. Patterson, ¶¶ 0233-235, 0238-239, 245-46; Fig. 4A.
4. Patterson explains: (a) the name value can be change; (b) the
image may change to match the machine’s architecture; and (c) the number
of servers in a tiered server may be reflected in the form of a numeral 344 on
the tier’s icon (e.g., server icon 324E has the number of server “9”
displayed). A name change is displayed when the user closes the
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

6
configuration dialog. Patterson, ¶¶ 0217, 0234-235, 0238-239, 245-46; Figs.
3A, 3C, 4A.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1 which calls for
selecting a first network element icon of the network element icons for
configuring a first network element. As the Examiner explains (see FF 1
(referring to Ans. 12-13)), Patterson’s node status display and its use of
colors form no part of the presented rejection. See FF 1 (referring to Ans.
4). Rather, the Examiner discusses server icon 324C to illustrate a first
selected network element icon that represents a first network element (e.g., a
server). See FF 1 (referring to Ans. 4, 10). Also, Patterson discloses
creating a graphical representation of a computer system by dragging or
selecting icons representing different network elements from a palette. See
FF 2. Patterson therefore discloses selecting a first network element icon
(e.g., 324) from the network elements’ icons (e.g., icons shown in Figure
3B) to create the system’s representation shown in Figure 3A.
Additionally, Patterson discloses using a window (e.g., 400) to
configure each network element’s (e.g., a server) parameters represented by
an icon (e.g., 324C). See FF 3. To get to this configuration window for the
server, the network element represented by the icon must have been selected
for configuration. See id. Thus, Patterson further discloses selecting a first
network element icon (e.g., 324C) for configuring a first network element
(e.g., a server) as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

7
Moreover, Patterson discloses that an entry is made using the server
tier configuration dialog window, when configuring a node’s parameters or a
property. See FF 3-4. The Examiner provides an example of such a
configuration (see FF 1 (referring to Ans. 4, 11-13)) when describing icon
324C and its label, “Server1.” This label or name must have been created by
entering “Server1” in name value box 402. See id. Additionally, Patterson
teaches obtaining other parameters, including the machine type (e.g. by
selecting from the type pull-down menu 404) and the number of servers
(e.g., by entering a number in server count field 418). For example, the
server icon 324E is shown as a multi-tiered server with the number of
servers “9,” which must have been entered using the server count field. See
FF 3-4. In both of these scenarios, the icons are displayed with some (e.g., a
name, the number of servers) but not all of the network element’s parameters
or properties entered and selected during configuration.
Thus, Patterson must create an association between a subset of
properties (e.g., name , number of servers) and the icon at some point before
displaying the icons and the subset together as shown in Figure 3A, such as
before the configuration dialog closes. See FF 3-4. This association with
the network element icon (e.g., 324C or 324E) also creates a relationship
with its network element because each icon represents a network element.
See FF 2-4. Patterson therefore discloses associating a subset of the first
properties with the first network element icon and the first network element
as recited in claim 1. Also, as stated above, Patterson discloses such entries
or changes within the configuration window are displayed and are visual
indicators indicating both through text (e.g., label “Server1,” server number
“9”) and an image (see FF 4) in the GUI the subset of properties that are
Appeal 2009-010183
Application 10/644,948

8
associated with a network element (e.g., a server) as recited in claim 1. See
FF 1 (referring to Ans. 12)).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the anticipation rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) claim 13 which is
commensurate in scope and relies on the arguments for claim 1 (see App. Br.
10); and (3) claims 2-12 and 14-25 not separately argued with particularity
(App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-4).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13-25 under § 112,
second paragraph or claims 1-25 under § 102.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc