Ex Parte LaFrance-Linden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2013

11585497 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID C. P. LAFRANCE-LINDEN
and HOWARD S. RIFKIN

Appeal 2010-009731
Application 11/585,497
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled
and claims 9 and 10 are allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
arrangement of nodes in a communications network. See Spec. 21, Abstract
of the Disclosure.
Appeal 2010-009731
Application 11/585,497
2

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method to display information regarding an arrangement of
nodes coupled by a communications network, wherein the nodes
are associated with at least one metric, the method comprising:

defining plural groups of the nodes based on the at least one metric
associated with the nodes; and

displaying group icons to represent the respective groups of nodes;

wherein defining the plural groups comprises adding a particular
node to a particular one of the plural groups based on comparing
the at least one metric associated with the particular node with a
corresponding at least one aggregated metric associated with the
particular group, wherein the at least one aggregated metric
associated with the particular group is based on aggregating
values of the at least one metric associated with the nodes of the
particular group.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Wechter US 7,454,488 B2 Nov. 18, 2008
(Filed Sep. 23, 2003)
Li US 5,535,403 Jul. 9, 1996

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 11, 13-15, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Li. Ans. 3-4.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Li. Ans. 4-5.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 16,
2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 24, 2010; and, the Reply
Brief filed April 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009731
Application 11/585,497
3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 12, 16, 17, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Li and Wechter. Ans. 5-8.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 13, and 18 by finding that Li discloses adding a particular node to a
particular group of nodes
based on comparing the at least one metric associated with the
particular node with a corresponding at least one aggregated
metric associated with the particular group, wherein the at least
one aggregated metric associated with the particular group is
based on aggregating values of the at least one metric
associated with the nodes of the particular group

as set forth substantially in each independent claim?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites that the defining of plural groups
of nodes comprises adding a particular node to a particular group of nodes
based on comparing the at least one metric associated with the
particular node with a corresponding at least one aggregated
metric associated with the particular group, wherein the at least
one aggregated metric associated with the particular group is
based on aggregating values of the at least one metric
associated with the nodes of the particular group. App. Br. 6

Appellants point out that the cited portion of Li describes graphically
illustrating a group of nodes utilizing a polygon selected from a plurality of
Appeal 2010-009731
Application 11/585,497
4
different polygon shapes and completely fails to address comparing a metric
from a selected node with an aggregated metric for the group of nodes. App.
Br. 6-8, Reply Br. 1-3.
The Examiner finds that the addition of a node to a group will alter the
aggregate metric for that group by changing the number of nodes in the
group, necessitating the selection of a different polygon to graphically
illustrate the group. Ans. 8-9.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We find nothing within Li
that suggests in any way the addition of a node to a particular group of nodes
based upon a comparison of a metric of that node to a corresponding
aggregated metric for the particular group of nodes as required in claim 1.
We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and claims 13 and 18 for
similar reasons. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
The citation of Wechter by the Examiner fails to address the deficiency we
note above with respect to Li. Consequently, it follows that Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited art renders claims 3,
5-8, and 11-20 unpatentable.
Thus, based on the record before us, and for the reasons set forth with
respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
art, particularly Li, teaches and/or suggests the above noted limitations
present in each independent claim. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-202.

2 We do not address the subject matter eligibility of the present claims. We
leave it to the Examiner to review these claims in view of MPEP §2106 with
regard to whether the claim language satisfies 35 U.S.C. §101.
Appeal 2010-009731
Application 11/585,497
5

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 11-20 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tkl