Ex Parte Tarbox et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2003

08971255 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed November 17, 1997.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BRIAN JAMES TARBOX, BETHANY ROSE SCAER
and JEFFREY PHILLIP SNOVER
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,2551
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GROSS, BLANKENSHIP, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-18, which are all of the claims pending in
this application.
We reverse.
2
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a computer controlled
user interactive display for graphically displaying portions of a
communication network such as nodes and objects. The user
selects the object attribute to be transiently displayed and
activates a transient display of the selected attribute proximate
to the object (specification, page 3). As shown in Figures 4 and
5, an attribute is selected by clicking on attribute window 87
which brings down attribute menu 88, from which the user makes a
selection (specification, page 11). Next, the user chooses one
of the objects so that the selected attribute for that object is
displayed in transient display area 89 and proximate to object
icon 80 (id.).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. In a computer managed communication network with user
interactive access via a plurality of display terminals and
including a plurality of network objects, each respectively
associated with one of a plurality of linked network nodes,
means for storing data representing attributes of said
network objects,
means for graphically displaying on at least one of
said display terminals, at least a portion of said linked
network nodes and associated objects,
user interactive means for activating for a selected
time period a transient display of a selected attribute of
one of said displayed objects proximate to said object, and
user interactive means for selecting the attribute to
be transiently displayed.
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
3
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Nagai et al. (Nagai) 5,483,631 Jan. 9, 1996
Pitchaikani et al. (Pitchaikani) 5,684,988 Nov. 4, 1997
Gennaro et al. (Gennaro) 5,742,768 Apr. 21, 1998
(filed Jul. 16, 1996)
Mayo et al. (Mayo) 5,751,965 May 12, 1998
(filed Mar. 21, 1996)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagai in view of
Pitchaikani.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagai and Pitchaikani and
further in view of Gennaro.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nagai and Pitchaikani and further in
view of Mayo.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed March 13, 2000) for
the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed
December 16, 1999) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
4
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15 and 16 over Nagai and Pitchaikani, Appellants argue that
the changeable colors of the displayed node in Nagai, as equated
by the Examiner to transient displays, at best, would represent a
transient value of a fixed attribute of the node (brief, page 4).
Appellants point out that Nagai neither discloses transient
display of a selected attribute nor provides for means for
selecting the attribute or the time period for its transient
display (id.). Additionally, Appellants argue that Pitchaikani
merely discloses that the stored values corresponding to
attributes of network objects may be accessed and displayed in a
standard pop-up window (brief, pages 4 & 5). Appellants further
assert that Pitchaikani provides no teaching or suggestion for
modifying Nagai and displaying the objects of a network and the
transient displaying of their attributes for a defined selected
time period (brief, page 5).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Nagai provides for displaying a selected object attribute as
a distinct color according to the status value corresponding to
that object (answer, page 12). The Examiner, however, recognizes
that the user interactive means for selecting the attribute to be
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
5
transiently displayed is absent in Nagai and asserts that
Pitchaikani discloses such user selection as steps 508 and 510 in
Figure 5 (id.). The Examiner further relies on the user
selection of reset button 312 in pop-up window 300 in Figure 3 of
Pitchaikani (answer, page 13) and concludes that the window is
displayed in a transient manner as the user selection [of reset]
dismisses the window and permits its display for a selected
period of time (answer, page 14).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only
identify the elements in the prior art, but also show “some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead the
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.”
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
6
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Turning to Nagai, we find that the reference discloses a
display system for management of a communication network in which
color data corresponding to the status values of specific network
objects may be displayed in a display location corresponding to
the object (Fig. 10 and col. 6, lines 38-43). Nagai further sets
forth the process for providing the object display data, in col.
4, lines 8-17 and Figures 1 and 2, by stating:
First, prior to the operation of the network
management/display processing system, a user at the display
unit 103 sets colors of elements in the communication
network to be displayed on the CRT 113 according to their
status values (administrative state value, operational state
value and severity) as shown in a state display color matrix
table in FIG. 3, using the keyboard 120 and the
display-presentation-system setter 119 (step 201) to store
the set data in the screen configuration/display data base
115 (step 202).
(Emphasis added).
Therefore, Nagai requires that setting the colors that correspond
to status values of the objects in a table before operating the
network data display. Additionally, as acknowledged by the
Examiner (answer, page 12), the user in Nagai sets the identifier
colors of elements according to their status values. Nagai, in
fact requires the user to determine all the colors associated
with specific status values in a table for display instead of
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
7
interactively selecting the attribute to be transiently displayed
for a selected time period.
Pitchaikani, on the other hand, relates to acquiring and
displaying object attribute data from a database in a pop-up
window by identifying the agent running on a device and its
corresponding objects. As depicted in Figures 1 and 5, after
signals indicative of the agent and the corresponding objects are
sent by the display mechanism 120, values corresponding to the
objects are retrieved and displayed in a pop-up window (col. 7,
lines 10-41). The pop-up window is shown in Figure 3 as
containing network code 302, device description 304, attribute
category 306 and attribute identifiers/values 308/310 (col. 11,
lines 1-13). The pop-up window further includes reset button 312
which causes new values to be retrieved and displayed for
attributes 308 in attribute value area 310 (col. 11, lines 13-
22).
Although we acknowledge that Pitchaikani’s reset button
modifies the content of the pop-up window, it neither selects the
attribute to be transiently displayed nor activates for a
selected time period a transient display of a selected attribute.
Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s proposed combination of the
pop-up window of Pitchaikani with the data display system of
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
8
Nagai, we do not find any teaching or suggestion in the prior art
that supports the obviousness of the claimed user interactive
means for activating a transient display of a selected attribute
and for selecting the attribute to be transiently displayed. The
Examiner has further failed to establish how the user selection
of the reset button, which only updates the same types of values
for the same displayed attributes, may be equated to the
limitation of user selecting the attribute to be transiently
displayed, as recited in independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
Similarly, the updating of the displayed attribute values, as
disclosed by Pitchaikani, neither teaches nor suggests the
claimed “activating for a selected time period a transient
display of a selected attribute” of a displayed object proximate
to that object since the reference passively displays all the
attributes and their values in one pop-up window.
Based on our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because
Nagai and Pitchaikani neither teach nor would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art selecting the attribute to be
displayed and activating a transient display of that attribute
for a selected time period. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
9
rejection of independent claims 1, 7 and 13, nor of claims 3, 4,
9, 10, 15 and 16 dependent thereon.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and
17, the Examiner further relies on Gennaro for teaching an
embedded menu in a web browser for displaying a plurality of
links (answer, page 8). Additionally, in rejecting claims 6, 12
and 18, the Examiner combines Nagai and Pitchaikani with Mayo
which discloses a representation of a relationship among entities
in a communications network based on their interface conditions.
However, neither Gennaro nor Mayo provide any teaching related to
the claimed selecting the attribute to be displayed and
activating a transient display of that attribute for a selected
time period and fail to overcome the deficiencies of Nagai and
Pitchaikani as discussed above. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 cannot be
sustained.
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
10
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to
reject claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
11
International Business Machines Corp.
IP Law Department - Internal Zip 4054
11400 Burnet Road
Austin, Texas 78758