Ex Parte Retlich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 9, 2012

10954128 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEVIN A. RETLICH
____________

Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-9, 11-20, 22-24, and 26-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to providing a graphical interface for network
system information. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system viewing tool for a networked system,
comprising:

a computer readable medium encoded with a computer
program for generating:

an expandable multi-level component tree, the
component tree comprising parent icons and child icons,
wherein the child icons at lowest levels in the tree correspond to
system components, whereas icons at all levels higher than the
child icons at the lowest level correspond to groupings of
system components, and wherein the parent icon is expandable
to reveal the child icon and the child icon is associated with a
networked component of the networked system;

a first dynamic graphic associated with the child icon and
a second dynamic graphic associated with the parent icon,
wherein the first dynamic graphic is mapped to a first parameter
in a database of components, wherein the first parameter
corresponds to the status of the networked component; and

a sorting system adapted to replace the first dynamic
graphic with a specific component graphic mapped to a second
parameter in the database of component characteristics based on
a changed status of the network component, wherein the second
parameter corresponds to the changed status of the networked
component, and replace the second dynamic graphic with the
specific component graphic.
Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

3

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lortz

Trinon

McIntyre
US 6,505,243 B1

US 2004/0024571 A1

US 6,813,587 B2
Jan. 7, 2003

Feb. 5, 2004

Nov. 2, 2004
(filed June 24, 2002)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5- 9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trinon and McIntyre.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trinon, McIntyre, and Lortz.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5- 9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26-29
Appellant contends that “there appears to be no suggestion that the
SMC [systems management console] of McIntyre maps a dynamic graphic
to a first parameter in a database of components. Specifically, there appears
to be no teaching in McIntyre of a database of components in which the
plurality of views is mapped.” (App. Br. 9). Appellant further contends that
“there is no teaching in McIntyre of a specific component graphic mapped to
a second parameter in the database. . . . [T]here is simply no teaching in
McIntyre that the updating of data or status of objects includes map[p]ing
the updated data or status to parameters in a database of components . . . .”
Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

4
(App. Br. 10). Thus, Appellant contends, “McIntyre fails to overcome the
admitted deficiencies of Trinon” (id.). We disagree.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Trinon discloses
[T]he first dynamic graphic is adapted to change based on
changes relating to a status of the networked component
(graphic indictor dynamically changed based on the
health/status, a green is used when the component is healthy
and a red one when it is not, paragraph [0021] and Fig. 1),
wherein the first parameter corresponds to the status of the
networked component (green color, representing a healthy
status of the networked component); [and]

. . . [R]eplacing the first dynamic graphic with . . . component
characteristics based on a changed status of the network
component, wherein the second parameter corresponds to the
changed status of the networked component . . . .

(Ans. 4-5). In particular, the Examiner finds that Trinon discloses
displaying a graphic (the claimed “first dynamic graphic”) mapped to the
status of a network component and, when the status changes, replacing the
graphic with a different graphic (the claimed “specific component graphic”)
mapped to the changed status of the network component. The Examiner
finds, however, that Trinon does not explicitly teach using a database so that
the graphics are mapped to parameters in a database corresponding to the
changing status of the network component (see Ans. 4-6, 13-15). The
Examiner relies on McIntyre’s database for managing application objects in
the context of a systems management console for disclosing the claimed
database (see id.). Moreover, the Examiner finds that “databases are
notoriously well known in the art for associated and persistence of data”
(Ans. 6), and that “mapping information pertaining to graphics or images to
database parameters is well known in the art” (Ans. 13).
Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

5
Appellant has neither contested the Examiner’s reliance on Trinon for
disclosing graphic mapping, nor the Examiner’s finding that McIntyre
discloses a database and that, in any case, databases were well known in the
art (see App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-3). Further, Appellant has not explained
why, in view of McIntyre, it would not have been obvious to perform
Trinon’s graphic mapping by using parameters stored in a database(see id.).
Rather, Appellant’s arguments that McIntyre fails to “map[] a dynamic
graphic to a first parameter in a database of components” and fails to
disclose a “specific component graphic mapped to a second parameter in the
database” (App. Br. 9-10) are directed to McIntyre individually, as opposed
to the collective teachings of Trinon and McIntyre that the Examiner relies
on for these features (see Ans. 4-6, 13-15).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5- 9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26-29 not separately
argued.

Claim 23
Appellant contends that McIntyre fails to disclose a “loss of
communications state” in addition to a “failure state” (see App. Br. 11-13).
The Examiner responds by citing a new portion of McIntyre which describes
“the ability of the object communication links to self-heal when an object is
moved to a new location in the network” (Ans. 16-17; McIntyre, col. 6, ll.
10-19). The Examiner finds that this self-healing ability meets the limitation
of a “loss of communications state” because McIntyre’s system can
recognize when an object is moved to a new location (see Ans. 17).
Appellant does not respond to the newly cited portion of McIntyre upon
Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

6
which the Examiner relied in the Answer (see Reply. Br. 3-5). While the
Examiner changed the thrust of the rejection in the Answer, Appellant had
an opportunity to respond to the Examiner’s findings in the Reply Brief.
Because of Appellant’s failure to rebut the Examiner’s additional findings,
we find that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s additional
findings.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 23 and claims 24 and 26-29 not separately argued.

Claims 4 and 18
Claims 4 and 18 depend, respectively, from claims 1 and 15.
Appellant makes no new arguments regarding claims 4 and 18 (see App. Br.
13-14), and thus we affirm the rejection of these claims for the reasons
discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-20, 22-24, and
26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-20,
22-24, and 26-29.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

Appeal 2011-002918
Application 10/954,128

7

AFFIRMED

peb