Ex Parte JibbeDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 12, 201010178696 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte MAHMOUD KHALED JIBBE ________________ Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Decided: January 12, 2010 ________________ Before JAY P. LUCAS, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11-18, 20-22, 28-35, and 40-44. Claims 2, 6-10, 19, 23-27, and 36-39 were canceled (Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to Appellant, the invention relates to a method and apparatus for validating configurations and components in a storage area network and for isolating faults (Spec. 2, ll. 5-7). Exemplary Claim 1. A method for resolving problem issues in a storage area network that includes a plurality of components, comprising: generating a configuration snapshot of said storage area network by: performing a component scan to identify said plurality of components and to collect component product data from each component in the plurality of components; comparing the component product data to certified product data in a database of certified components; associating a component alarm with each component that does not match a certified component in the database of certified components; flagging a variance between the component product data and the certified product data when a variance exists between the component product data and the certified product data for each one of the plurality of components; and Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 3 generating a component product data graph based on the results of the component scan, wherein the component product data graph highlights the variance between the component product data and the certified product data; and presenting said configuration snapshot graphically using graphical icons to represent said plurality of components and graphically depicting interconnections among said plurality of components, said configuration snapshot depicting each variance graphically using a variance icon that is displayed next to a depiction of each component within the plurality of components when a difference exists between the component product data and the certified product data for that component within the plurality of components. Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Dev 5,261,044 Nov. 9, 1993 Malik 5,832,503 Nov. 3, 1998 Ebsen 2003/0217310 Nov. 20, 2003 THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS (7th ed. 2000). Examiner's Rejections 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Malik, and Dev, which is incorporated by reference in Malik (See col. 4, ll. 10-14). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 13-16, 30-33, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Malik, Dev, and Ebsen. Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, "[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation." Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving the claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. Obviousness In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 5 the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). THE §102(b) REJECTION OVER MALIK AND DEV Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 42-44 Appellant argues their claims recite that two different icons are displayed, with the component and the variance icon displayed only when a difference exists (Br. 13). Appellant argues Dev, in contrast, teaches a single multifunction icon that depicts both a network device and the status of the device – the status being displayed at all times, not just when a difference exists (id.). Further, Appellant argues Dev teaches changing the background color of the device icon upon a device change, and does not teach a second icon displayed next to the multifunction icon 400 (id.). Additionally, Appellant contends Malik merely allows a user to configure network devices using templates, store configurations in a model, and compare one model to another model (id. at 14). Appellant argues Malik does not perform a component scan because the configuration information is stored in a model as devices are configured (id. at 15). Appellant thus contends neither reference teaches depicting variance graphically through use of an icon displayed next to the respective component icon only when a difference exists between component product data and certified product data for that component (id.). Instead, Appellant asserts both Malik and Dev depict textual descriptions that do not represent the variance (id.). The Examiner found Malik and Dev teach generating a configuration snapshot for a communication network (Ans. 10). Specifically, the Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 6 Examiner found Malik and Dev teach (1) a configuration manager that obtains component attributes through interrogation, and (2) a display of a model of the network, including events, alarms, and statistical information regarding the network components (id. at 9-10). Further, the Examiner found “Dev teaches multifunction icons . . . used to represent each network component” that include (1) “an area for displaying an iconic or symbolic representation of the device”; and (2) “an area for representing the status of the network device” (id. at 10). The Examiner found “[a]ccording to The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, an icon can be defined as ‘a symbol that is a pictorial indication of a command or object and is located on a graphics tablet or an on-screen menu.’” (Id.). Further, the Examiner found Dev teaches each area (as shown in figure 9) “may be clicked upon to execute a command and obtain additional information regarding the network device” (id. at 11). Therefore, the Examiner found “each area is a pictorial indication of a command” and each area can be identified as separate icons (id.). Specifically, the Examiner found (1) “the multifunction icon shown in figure 9 can be considered a nested or multiple-icon icon”, and “[t]hus, Dev does discloses a variance icon . . . 414 that is displayed next to a depiction of the component” (i.e., either item 412 or 416) (id.). Further, because the Examiner found that if the background area is always displayed, then it is also displayed when a difference exists (id.). The Examiner also found Appellant was arguing limitations not recited in the claim (id. at 11-12). Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 7 ISSUE Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Dev teaches (1) performing a component scan and (2) using a graphical variance icon that is displayed next to a graphical depiction of each component within the plurality of components when a difference exists? FINDINGS OF FACT We find as follows: Malik Reference 1. A network management system 14 continually monitors a network and maintains an information database regarding every managed device in the network. A configuration manager 18 obtains the values of certain data which defines the characteristics of the network device being modeled in a desired configuration by interrogating the network management system model of the managed device. The configuration manager then enables a system administrator to create new configurations, load these configurations to devices anywhere in the network, and verify whether the configurations have changed (Col. 3, ll. 13-26; FIGs. 1, 2). Dev Reference 2. The multifunction icon 400 can include “an area 410 for displaying an iconic or symbolic representation 412 of the device, a background area 414 for representing the status of the network device by different colors, and a figure 416 used for traversing to a pictorial representation of the device.” (Col. 15, ll. 16-25; Fig. 9). 3. The background area 414 surrounds the symbolic representation 412 (Fig. 9). Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 8 Definitions 4. “Scan” is defined as examining systematically in order to obtain data. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1107-1108 (2003). 5. An “icon” is “‘a symbol that is a pictorial indication of a command or object and is located on a graphics tablet or an on-screen menu.’” (Ans. 10). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “performing a component scan;” however, we find Appellant fails to explicitly define "scan." We find the term scan is defined as examining systematically in order to obtain data (FF 4). Thus, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a reference to the term "component scan" to mean systematically examining a component in order to obtain data. We also find Malik discloses (1) continuous monitoring of the network and (2) obtaining the values of certain data which defines the characteristics of the network device being modeled (FF 1). Thus, we find Malik’s teaching of monitoring the network and obtaining data that defines network device characteristics necessarily involves systematically examining components (i.e., the network devices) to obtain data and thus, Malik teaches "performing a component scan." We also find Dev teaches displaying an iconic or symbolic representation 412 of the device that is a graphical representation of a component (FF 2). Further, we find Dev teaches a background area 414 that represents the status of the network device (and thus, the network status) using different colors (id.). Appellant does not dispute that the background area 414 is an indication of change (See Br. 12). Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 9 Further, since an icon is a symbol that is a pictorial indication of a command or object and is located on a graphics tablet or an on-screen menu (FF 5), we find background area 414 which is a pictorial representation of an object on a screen, is also an icon and graphical representation. Thus, we find two items are displayed, the (1) symbolic representation of the device 412 and (2) the background area 414 (a representation of the status of the device). The background area 414 (i.e., variance icon) also surrounds the symbolic representation of the device 412 (i.e., the depiction of the component) (FF 3). Thus, we find a skilled artisan would have recognized the variance icon (background area 414) is displayed next to the depiction of the component (the symbolic representation of the device 412), as the background area 414 surrounds the representation of the component 412. Further, we find the background area 414 is a part of the multifunction icon and is always displayed (see FF 2). Thus, as the background area 414 (variance icon) is always displayed, it is necessarily displayed when a difference exists. Appellant further argues Dev does not teach that the variance icon is not visible when no difference exists; however, we find this to be unpersuasive, and not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we find Malik, and Dev teach "performing a component scan … ; and using graphical icons to represent said plurality of components and … depicting each variance graphically using a variance icon that is Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 10 displayed next to a depiction of each component within the plurality of components when a difference exists" as recited in exemplary claim 1. Appellant argues claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 42-44 as a group (Br. 11-15). Independent claims 18 and 35 are commensurate in scope with exemplary claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of (1) independent claim 1, and claims 3-5, 11, 12, and 17, which depend therefrom; (2) independent claim 18, and 20-22, 28, 29, 34, and 43 which depend therefrom; and (3) independent claim 35 and claim 44, which depends therefrom. OTHER ISSUES The Examiner also rejected claims 13-16, 30-33, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Malik and Dev in view of Ebsen. Appellant presents substantially the same arguments made with regard to exemplary claim 1 with respect to these claims (Br. 15-16). Thus, for the reasons discussed above with regard to exemplary claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 13-16, which depend from independent claim 1; (2) claims 30- 33, which depend from independent claim 18; and (3) claims 40 and 41, which depend from independent claim 35. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Malik and Dev disclose "performing a component scan … ; and using graphical icons to represent said plurality of components and … depicting each variance graphically using a variance icon that is displayed next to a depiction of each Appeal 2008-005432 Application 10/178,696 11 component within the plurality of components when a difference exists" as recited in exemplary claim 1. Accordingly we conclude Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 42- 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Malik and Dev, which is incorporated by reference in Malik. As Appellant presented substantially the same arguments for claims 13-16, 30-33, 40 and 41, we conclude Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-16, 30-33, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Malik, Dev, and Ebsen. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20-22, 28, 29, 34, 35, and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Malik and Dev, which is incorporated by reference in Malik, is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16, 30-33, 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Malik, Dev, and Ebsen 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) (2009). AFFIRMED nhl Duke W Yee Yee & Associates, P.C. P.O. Box 802333 Dallas TX 75380 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation