Ex parte Sundstrom et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 22, 1999

08138650 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 18, 1993.1
1
Paper No. 12
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GUNILLA A. SUNDSTROM,
ANTHONY C. SALVADOR and
THOMAS F. MERTZIG
______________
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,6501
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, MARTIN, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
2
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, which constitute
all the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a computer system
for monitoring devices in a telecommunications network. More
particularly, the invention is directed to the manipulation of
information on a display device by a user. A plurality of
tasks can be presented on the display device. A task is the
grouping of certain information regarding the status of the
tele-communications network [Specification at page 2, lines
24-26]. All the information associated with a given task can
be accessed and manipulated at one time by the user. A
selection means is provided for selecting a subset of the
tasks for presentation by the display device.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer system for monitoring a plurality of tasks
composed of one or more events to control devices in a
telecommunications network comprising:
input means for receiving said events from devices in the
telecommunications network;
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
3
grouping means for grouping one or more events into a
said task;
display means for graphically presenting said tasks;
selection means coupled to the display means for
selecting
a subset of said tasks for presentation by the display means.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Weiss et al. (Weiss) 5,363,315 Nov. 08, 1994
(filed June 30, 1992)
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Weiss.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
4
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Weiss does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claims 1-9. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single
group [brief, page 4]. Consistent with this indication
appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any
of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before
us will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 1, which is the broadest claim on appeal, as
representative of all the claims on appeal.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
5
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Assocs. Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner indicates how he reads the four elements of claim
1 on Weiss [answer, page 3]. Appellants argue that the
meaning of “task” as used in their claims is very much
different than the meaning of task used by Weiss. Appellants
also argue that the claimed invention and the teachings of
Weiss are in entirely different fields of technology [brief,
pages 4-6]. Since we are of the view that the examiner has
not properly considered all the language of the claims on
appeal, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-9 as anticipated by Weiss.
As we noted above in the discussion of the invention,
a key feature of the invention is that certain events can be
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
6
grouped as tasks and the tasks can be displayed to a user for
access and manipulation on the display. This feature is
represented in claim 1 by the recitation of a selection means
for “selecting a subset of said tasks for presentation by the
display means.” Thus, claim 1, as well as independent claim
8, recite that a selection means orders the task information
for presentation on the display means. An element for
implementing this function is not present in Weiss.
The examiner has pointed to display 160 of Weiss as
meeting the claimed display means and to column 3, lines 27-30
as meeting the claimed selection means [answer, page 3].
These portions of Weiss, however, provide no indication of
what information is presented on the display means or how the
presented information is affected by the “selection means.”
In fact, we can find no teaching or suggestion in Weiss that
information presented on the display can be controlled in any
particular manner. The “selection means” pointed to by the
examiner simply does not perform the function of that means as
recited in claims 1 and 8.
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
7
It appears to us that the examiner has failed to
appreciate that the invention is primarily directed to the
manipulation of data (tasks) related to a telecommunications
network on a display device. Although such data manipulations
are well known in graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and object
oriented programming, for example, no reference related to
these concepts has been applied in any rejection of the claims
on appeal.
In summary, Weiss simply is unrelated to the claimed
invention and does not disclose all the limitations recited in
independent claims 1 and 8. Although we cannot say on this
record whether there is better prior art available than Weiss,
we can say that Weiss does not fully meet the invention as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
8
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN C. MARTIN ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JS/cam
Appeal No. 97-0883
Application 08/138,650
9
Lawrence E. Monks
GTE Telecommunications
Products & Services
40 Sylvan Road - MS#31
Waltham, MA 02254