Ex Parte Muthu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

13789488 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/789,488 03/07/2013
153509 7590 08/27/2018
Broadcom
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suresh Muthu
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
112-0706US 5924
EXAMINER
JIANG, HAIMEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
acollins@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
klutsch@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURESH MUTHU, SATHIAPRIY A SATHIY AGIRI,
PRAKASH KALIGOTLA,
MURTHYN. BHETANABHOTLA, NING ZHOU, and
DAVID B. HAMIL TON
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention generally relates to graphical user interfaces
that display both a graphical and numerical indicator of a network
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
characteristic when the display window is minimized. Spec., Abstract.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
displaying on a graphical display a window displaying status
level of a selected network parameter in a ranked order for a plurality
of network devices; and
minimizing said window to a minimized format and displaying
first and second indicators in said minimized format, said first and
second indicators relating to the status of the network parameter for the
network device ranked the highest, said first indicator being a graphical
symbol indicative of the status level of said network parameter of said
highest ranked network device and said second indicator being a
numerical value of said network parameter of said highest ranked
network device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view ofVankov (US 2013/0007524 Al; Jan. 3, 2013) and Pearcy
(US 2013/0061169 Al; Mar. 7, 2013). Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view ofVankov, Pearcy, and Masters (US 7,051,098 B2; May 23, 2006).
Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds V ankov teaches every element recited in
independent claims 1, 5, and 9, except for minimizing a window and
displaying the two indicators in minimized format. See Final Act. 4--7.
Specifically, the Examiner finds "Pearcy is brought in to teach the
expanding and minimizing ability of a display format and as shown in Fig.
5B of Pearcy" more details with indicators can be shown when expanding a
graph. Final Act. 5---6. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner
2
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
finds Vankov' s disclosure of "ranking order of network parameters/metrics
in order to show the user the network survivability in terms of threshold
degradation" teaches or suggests "displaying on a graphical display a
window displaying status level of a selected network parameter in a ranked
order for a plurality of network devices," as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 5 and 9. Final Act. 5 ( citing Vankov
,r,r 20, 34, Fig. 2B). The Examiner then finds Vankov's arrowheads, which
are color-coded to indicate "the degree of severity [ of] each illustrated
performance degradation," teach or suggest the recited "first indicator being
a graphical symbol indicative of the status level of said network parameter"
and Vankov's displayed numerical measures of the performance metrics
teach or suggest the recited "second indicator being a numerical value of
said network parameter." Final Act. 5 (citing Vankov ,r,r 19--20, 27, Fig.
2B).
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is improper because the
Examiner relies on two distinct elements to teach or suggest the same
limitation in claims 1, 5, and 9. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 7-9. More
specifically, Appellants assert the Examiner finds Vankov' s sorting of its
network devices by the "Total Number of Critical Violations" metric teaches
or suggests the recited step of "displaying on a graphical display a window
displaying status level of a selected network parameter in a ranked order for
a plurality of network devices." App. Br. 12-14. Appellants contend the
claim requires displaying first and second indicators of the same network
parameter on which the network devices are ordered, but the Examiner
relies on indicators associated with different network parameters (i.e.,
network parameters 211-214, depicted in Vankov's Figure 2B). App.
3
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 7-9 (arguing the Examiner's findings ignore the
antecedent basis of the recited "network parameter."). Appellants assert
Vankov's "Total Number of Critical Violations" metric, which the Examiner
finds is the network parameter on which Vankov orders its network devices
does not include "graphical symbols ... so there cannot be a first indicator"
for the "Total Number of Critical Violations" metric. Reply Br. 8.
Appellants further assert Vankov's other network parameters (e.g., "Failed
Traffic Flows" 211, "Failed LSPs" 212, "Failed ATM PVCs" 213, "Failed
Frame Relay PVCs" 214) are not ranked and, therefore, cannot teach or
suggest the network parameter on which the network devices are ranked and
ordered for display. Reply Br. 8-9.
The Examiner responds that the claim recites displaying different
representations of the recited network parameter and not the network
parameter itself. Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Vankov discloses
displaying the degree of severity associated with the parameter because the
first limitation recites displaying "status level" of the parameter, whereas the
Examiner finds Vankov teaches displaying values associated with data
points 211-214 because the claim recites a "second indicator being a
numerical value of said network parameter." Ans. 5. The Examiner states
the respective citations are appropriate because the claim recites different
types of data-i.e., "[t]he first is a status level of a parameter and the second
is a numerical value of the parameter." Ans. 5.
Vankov discloses systems and methods allowing users to identify
multiple failure conditions in order to evaluate and compare those metrics in
a network. Vankov ,r 16-18. Vankov describes a "failure condition" (also
referred to as a "fault condition" or simply "failure") the occurrence of
4
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
abnormal behavior among network elements. Vankov ,r 17. Vankov's users
may identify "performance degradation thresholds" that indicate the level of
severity of performance degradation of various performance metrics related
to the tracked fault conditions, allowing a comparison of the different
metrics based on the defined severity levels for each metric and, ultimately,
allowing the fault conditions to be rank ordered. V ankov ,r 19.
Vankov can display the status of the failure conditions for the network
by displaying a numerical value representing each performance metric as
well as a color-coded arrowhead representing the severity level of that
metric. Vankov ,r,r 24, 26-27. "[T]he list of failure conditions in FIG. 2B is
presented in rank order, from most significant failure condition to least."
Vankov ,r 27. A "degradation vector is used to define the degree of severity
of degradation resulting from each failure condition" by aggregating the
effects of each tracked metric for each failure condition. Vankov ,r,r 28-31.
The vector for each failure condition may indicate the severity level of each
metric for that failure condition. Vankov ,r,r 28-31.
The vector "is used to rank order the failure conditions [ using a ]ny of
a variety of techniques ... to effect this rank ordering." Vankov ,r 32; see
Vankov ,r,r 33-34. Vankov's preferred embodiment, depicted in Figure 2B,
uses the total number of critical violations to rank order the fault conditions.
Vankov ,r 34. Vankov's preferred embodiment displays the values and
severity levels of each performance metric for each of the top fault
conditions, and V ankov ranks the fault conditions based on the total number
of critical violations. Vankov ,r 34--36, Fig. 2B. Vankov also displays the
total number of critical violations. Vankov, Fig. 2B (element 270).
5
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner improperly finds two
distinct network parameters teach or suggest different aspects of claims 1, 5,
and 9 related to a single recited parameter. We start by discussing the
construction of the claims.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "displaying status level of a selected
network parameter in a ranked order for a plurality of network devices,"
"displaying.first and second indicators," and "said first and second indicators
relating to the status of the network parameter for the network device ranked
the highest, said first indicator being a graphical symbol indicative of the
status level of said network parameter of said highest ranked network
device" ( emphases added). Claims 5 and 9 recite similar limitations.
The claims require displaying a "status level of a selected network
parameter in ranked order" for multiple devices. Accordingly, claim 1
requires not only displaying a status level of a parameter for multiple
devices, but that the status level of the parameter for each of the multiple
devices are displayed in a ranked order. In other words, claim 1 requires
that each devices' status level of a particular parameter is ranked and the
parameter status level (and, accordingly, the device having the respective
parameter status levels) is displayed in order of that rank relative to the other
devices' parameter status levels.
Furthermore, as Appellants argue, claim 1 recites various elements
related to the same network parameter. Specifically, claim 1 requires
displaying two indicators that "relat[ e] to the status of the network
parameter for the network device ranked the highest," one of which is a
graphical symbol indicating "the status level of said network parameter of
said highest ranked network device" ( emphases added). Although the claims
6
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
use inconsistent language, we construe "the network parameter" and "said
network parameter" to both have antecedent basis in the previously recited
"a selected network parameter," notwithstanding the later omission of
"selected." The first-recited "a selected network parameter" is the only
"network parameter" to which "the network parameter" and "said network
parameter" could be referring. Moreover, the context of the claim, which
recites that it is "the status of the network parameter for the network device
ranked the highest" provides a further clue that the later-recited network
parameter is the same parameter whose status level is used in the first step to
rank order the network devices.
Given our interpretation of claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
recited in claims 5 and 9, the claims require that the same "network
parameter" whose status level provides the basis for rank ordering must also
be the parameter whose status is related to the first and second indicators.
More specifically, the parameter must also be the same parameter for which
the first indicator is a graphical symbol indicative of the status level.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings fail to
demonstrate the claimed limitations because the Examiner does not point to
a single network parameter in V ankov that is both a parameter on which the
network devices are rank ordered and a network parameter for which
V ankov provides the recited first indicator.
We agree with Appellants that, to the extent the Examiner finds
Vankov' s Total Number of Critical Violations parameter is that parameter
having a status level on which the network devices are rank ordered, V ankov
does not teach or suggest the recited first indicator because Vankov's Total
Number of Critical Violations does not include a color-coded arrowhead, or
7
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
any other graphical symbol indicative of the status of that metric, as required
by the claims. Alternatively to the extent the Examiner finds Vankov's
various other metrics that do include color-coded arrowheads are the recited
parameter, Vankov orders only based on the Total Number of Critical
Violations.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding further obvious
modifications or reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made such
modifications, such as, for example, modifying Vankov's Figure 2B to
include graphical indicators in the Total Number of Critical Violations
column ( e.g., a red arrowhead for 2 or more network parameters with a
critical status; a yellow arrowhead for 1 network parameter with a critical
status or 3 or more network parameters with a moderate status; and a green
arrowhead when there are no network parameters with a critical status and
fewer than 3 network parameters with a moderate status) or ranking the
network devices based on a single one of the displayed network parameters
(e.g., allowing a user to click on the columns in Vankov's Figure 2B to
select the column on which the user would like the devices sorted). We find
the preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding
that Vankov teaches or suggests displaying a particular network parameter in
a ranked order and also displaying a first and second indicator of that same
particular network parameter.
Accordingly, constrained by this record, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view ofVankov and Pearcy for the reasons discussed above. Nor
do we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 5 and 9, which
recite similar limitations and which Appellants argue are patentable for
8
Appeal2018-002543
Application 13/789,488
similar reasons. App. Br. 7-14. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11, which
ultimately depend from one of claims 1, 5, and 9, and incorporate the
limitations therein, stand with their independent claims. Claims 4, 8, and 12
depend from, and incorporate the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 9,
respectively. The Examiner does not find Masters cures the identified
deficiency in independent claims 1, 5, and 9 and, therefore, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 8, and 12 as obvious in view of
Vankov, Pearcy, and Masters.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12.
REVERSED
9