Ex Parte Jibbe

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 12, 2010

10178696 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2010)

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