Ex Parte Nazzal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2010

10880332 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT N. NAZZAL
____________

Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: January 27, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO
and KEVIN TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 26.
Appellant has invented a display device and method for rendering a
graphical user interface for constructing rules to run on an intrusion
detection system (Figs. 1, 9, 10; Spec. 1-4, 14-18; Abstract).
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A display device rendering a graphical user interface (herein after
graphical user interface) for constructing rules to run on an intrusion
detection system, the graphical user interface comprising:
a field that specifies a first set of nodes on a network by Host-Group;
a field that specifies a second set of nodes on a network by Host-
Group; and
a field which determines whether to interpret the first and second
host-group fields as client/server, source/destination or any of these.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sherlock US 2002/0093527 A1 Jul. 18, 2002
Rakoshitz US 6,578,077 B1 Jun. 10, 2003
Levillain US 2003/0107590 A1 Jun. 12, 2003
Hrastar US 2004/0210654 A1 Oct. 21, 2004
(filed Apr. 21, 2003)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 3, 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Rakoshitz.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 to 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rakoshitz and
Levillain.
The Examiner rejected claims 18 to 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rakoshitz, Levillain, and Sherlock.
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Rakoshitz, Levillain, and Hrastar.
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

3
Anticipation
With respect to claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 21, Appellant argues inter alia
(App. Br. 10-13, 15, and 16) that Rakoshitz does not describe a graphical
user interface with the claimed fields. With respect to claim 3, Appellant
argues (App. Br. 14) that Rakoshitz does not describe a control that
determines whether “the rule is applied to any host in the group or to the
aggregate of the entire group’s traffic.”
Obviousness
With respect to claim 4, Appellant argues (App. Br. 16, 17) that
Levillain does not “allow a user to choose a grouped set of nodes.” With
respect to claims 5, 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26, Appellant argues (App.
Br. 17-21) that the reference combination neither teaches nor suggests the
claimed fields. With respect to claims 18 and 19, Appellant argues (App.
Br. 22) that the reference combination neither teaches nor suggests
“‘specifying a day and time period when the rule is generated.’” With
respect to claim 23, Appellant argues (App. Br. 23) that the reference
combination neither teaches nor suggests the claimed fields.

ISSUES
Anticipation
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Rakoshitz does describe a graphical user interface with the claimed fields as
set forth in claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 21?
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
Rakoshitz does describe a control that determines whether a rule is applied
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

4
to any host in a group or to an aggregate of the entire group’s traffic as set
forth in claim 3?
Obviousness
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Levillain allows a user to choose a grouped set of nodes as set forth in claim
4?
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied reference combination teaches or suggests the fields set forth in
claims 5, 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26?
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied reference combination teaches or suggests specifying a day and
time period when a rule is generated as set forth in claims 18 and 19?
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied reference combination teaches or suggests the fields set forth in
claim 23?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Rakoshitz describes a display device that renders a graphical user
interface with fields 1001-1009 for constructing rules on a monitoring
system (Figs. 1, 8, 10, 11; col. 3, ll. 35-55; col. 14, ll. 7-11). The fields
described by Rakoshitz include client/server 917, and the fields 1001 and
1101 show a host name or names (col. 10, ll. 41-46; col. 16, ll. 44-57; col.
18, ll. 10-13 and 62-64). Rakoshitz specifically states that “[r]ules can be
created for very specific groups” (col. 15, ll. 43, 44).
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

5
2. Levillain displays addresses of nodes and permits a user to choose
either a single node or several nodes (e.g., “Add all”)1 (Fig. 21; ¶ 0064).
3. Sherlock describes an execution run pull-down window that shows
current day and time processing period (Fig. 8; ¶ 0154).
4. Hrastar describes the generation of an alarm during the failure of a
service (¶ 0205).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Non-Functional Descriptive Material
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-83 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an
invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d
1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Anticipation
Anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art
reference discloses every element of the claim. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

1 Appellant acknowledges (App. Br. 17) that Levillain “displays IP addresses
of nodes and thus allows a user to choose either a single node or several
nodes, e.g., ‘add all’ by addresses of the nodes.”
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

6
Obviousness
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
For all of the reasons expressed by the Examiner (Ans. 3-38), and for
the additional reasons set forth infra, we agree with the Examiner that claims
1 to 26 are either taught by or would have been suggested by the applied
references.
Non-functional Descriptive Material
Anticipation
Turning first to claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 21, we find Appellant’s
arguments to be unconvincing inasmuch as they are directed to non-
functional descriptive material that is in each of the claimed fields of the
graphical user interface. Stated differently, the displayed material in each of
the claimed fields does not render that displayed field patentable over other
displayed fields, e.g., the fields displayed by Rakoshitz, because it is merely
non-functional descriptive material that changes based upon the display
output desires of the user. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1582-83; Ngai, 367 F.3d at
1338. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 21 is
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

7
sustained because: Rakoshitz describes a display device that renders a
graphical user interface with fields 1001-1009 for constructing rules on a
monitoring system; the fields include client/server 917; and the fields 1001
and 1101 show a host name or names (FF1). See King, 801 F.2d at 1326.
Turning next to claim 3, the anticipation rejection of this claim is
sustained because Rakoshitz specifically states that “[r]ules can be created
for very specific groups” (FF1) which includes both any host in a group or
the aggregate of an entire group.
Obviousness
Turning first to claim 4, the obviousness rejection of this claim is
sustained because Appellant and the Examiner both agree that Levillain
displays addresses of nodes and permits a user to choose either a single node
or several nodes (FF2).
Turning to claims 5, 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26, Appellant’s
arguments concerning what is displayed by the fields is not convincing of
the non-obviousness of these claims since the displayed material is directed
to non-functional descriptive material as indicated supra. Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26 is
sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19 is sustained because
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 24) that it would have been manifestly
obvious to the skilled artisan to specify the day and time of the generation of
a rule as suggested by Sherlock (FF3) for the advantage of identifying
multiple versions of a rule based on generation times.
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

8
The obviousness rejection of claim 23 is sustained because Hrastar
describes the generation of an alarm during the failure of a service (FF4),
and because the remainder of the claim is directed to non-functional
descriptive material as indicated supra.
The obviousness rejection of claims 20 and 22 is sustained because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims.
Appellant’s arguments throughout the briefs do not convince us of any
error in the Examiner’s positions in the rejections of claims 4 to 6, 8 to 13,
15 to 20, and 22 to 26. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. The Examiner’s
articulated reasoning in the rejections possesses a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusions of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that Rakoshitz describes a graphical user interface with fields as set forth in
claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 21.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that Rakoshitz describes a control that determines whether a rule is applied
to any host in a group or to an aggregate of the entire group’s traffic as set
forth in claim 3.
Obviousness
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that Levillain allows a user to choose a grouped set of nodes as set forth in
claim 4.
Appeal 2009-006907
Application 10/880,332

9
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the applied reference combination teaches or suggests the fields set forth
in claims 5, 6, 8 to 13, 15 to 17, and 24 to 26.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the applied reference combination teaches or suggests the specifying of
a day and time period when a rule is generated as set forth in claims 18 and
19.
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the applied reference combination teaches or suggests the fields as set
forth in claim 23.

ORDER
The rejections of claims 1 to 26 are 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

KIS

Riverbed Technology Inc. - PVF
c/o Park, Vaughan & Fleming, L.L.P.
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618