Ex Parte Njo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2010

10742094 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANGELA M. NJO and ROBERT P. SEDOR
________________

Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: January 26, 2010
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

J. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 11, and 23-44. Appellants have canceled
claims 12-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094

2

Invention
Appellants have invented:
A system and method for manipulation of event data, such as
errors, in a networked environment. The method includes
receiving event signal data indicative of an event, and
associating descriptive data with the event signal
data. The descriptive data is then mapped to one or more
associated connections. A determination is made whether to
post identifier data corresponding to the event signal data. This
determination is made as a function of predetermined criteria.
(Abstract; Spec. 23; Fig. 2.)

Representative Claim
1. A method for performing error manipulation comprising:
receiving event signal data indicative of an event;
associating descriptive data with the event signal data;
mapping the descriptive data to one or more associated connections;
determining whether to post identifier data corresponding to the event
signal data as a function of predetermined criteria, wherein the
predetermined criteria provide at least two levels corresponding to different
event signal data categories and wherein at least one of the two levels is
selected; and
posting particular identifier data only if the event signal data
corresponds to the at least one selected level.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lee 6,892,330 B2 May 10, 2005
(Filed Nov. 28, 2001)
Larsson 7,062,681 B2 June 13, 2006
(Filed Dec. 3, 2002)
Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094

3

All claims on appeal, 1 through 11 and 23-44, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon Lee in
view of Larsson.

Claim Grouping
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, Appellants consider
independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 23 on appeal. We do so likewise. Only some dependent claims
are argued; they are treated separately.

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lee and Larsson would have taught or suggested posting
particular identifier data only if the event signal data corresponds to the
predetermined at least one selected level, as recited in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. As to the features of independent claims 1 and 23 on appeal, the
claimed predetermined criteria providing at least two levels corresponding to
different event signal data categories, wherein at least one of the two levels
is selected, as well as the feature of posting particular identifier data only if
the event signal data corresponds to the at least one selected level, were
entered by an amendment received on February 2, 2007. No corresponding
basis was cited in the remarks portions of this amendment to justify these
particular limitations from the originally disclosed invention.
Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094

4
2. With respect to the Appellants’ positions taken in the paragraphs
bridging pages 9 and 10 of the Brief with respect to the Examiner’s positions
at page 3 of the Final Rejection, in which the Examiner relied upon column
3 of Larsson, Appellants state that “Larsson ‘681 apparently teaches positing
[sic posting] each error event and logging each event to at least the stage one
files 46” [illustrated in Figure 3 of Larsson].

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not challenged the
combinability of Lee and Larsson within 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Brief.
Therefore, no governing case law is recited in this opinion to that effect.
The remaining determination to be made is whether the combined teachings
and/or suggestions between these references would have rendered obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter that is claimed and argued
before us.
We also note that the subject matter of representative independent
claim 1 on appeal indicates that the selection process among the categories
requires only that “at least one of the two levels is selected.” This claim,
therefore, permits, by its own terms, the selection of both recited levels.
Additionally, the posting feature only appears to recite a limiting function
because of the recitation of the feature of posting “only if the event single
data corresponds to the at least one selected level.” Because of the recitation
of the broadly defined selection capability, the posting feature at the end of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal encompasses the capability of
posting both of the two selected levels, a feature that is inclusive within the
selection clause of claim 1. See FF1. Thus, the view expressed at pages 10
Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094

5
and 11 of the Brief that only a subset of event data is posted, as claimed, is
not consistent with the actual, reasonable scope to an artisan interpreting the
subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal.
Indeed, Appellants’ admission in FF2 that Larsson apparently teaches
posting each error event and logging each event effectively admits the
subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal, which was
argued not to be present in this reference, is in fact inclusive within the
actual scope of the language of representative independent claim 1 on appeal
itself. Appellants’ other arguments with respect to the disclosed
Specification paragraphs [0028] and [0029] are unpersuasive of patentability
since these paragraphs amount to an attempt to invite us to read the details of
the disclosed invention into the broad scope of the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal. This we will not do.
With respect to the subject matter generally argued not to be present
in certain dependent claims noted at pages 11 and 12 of the Brief, the
Examiner has particularly addressed each of these at pages 12 and 13 of the
Answer. As to the subject matter of dependent claim 38, the Examiner’s
general analysis of Larsson and the depiction of Larsson’s system even
within Figure 1 of this reference are inclusive of an end user as one of the
plurality of user classifications recited in this claim.
Moreover, independently of our claim analysis earlier, as a general
matter, the Examiner’s extensive rebuttal arguments (in the responsive
arguments portion of the Answer at pages 10-12) present the Examiner’s
views in a persuasive manner that the features argued not to be present in
representative independent claim 1 on appeal would have been reasonably
taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-004173
Application 10/742,094

6
We particularly note that no Reply Brief has been filed to contest these
responsive arguments of the Examiner.

CONCLUSION and DECISION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lee and Larsson would have taught or suggested the feature
of posting particular identifier data only if the event signal data corresponds
to at least one selected level, as recited in representative independent claim 1
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 23-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. All claims on appeal are unpatentable
over the prior art of record.
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

erc

PITNEY BOWES INC.
35 WATERVIEW DRIVE
MSC 26-22
SHELTON, CT 06484-3000