Ex Parte Graupner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2013

11158777 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SVEN GRAUPNER, KEITH I. FARKAS, JEROME ROLIA, and MARTIN F. ARLITT ____________ Appeal 2010-008635 Application 11/158,777 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-36.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed September 24, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 4, 2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed March 1, 2010. Appeal 2010-008635 Application 11/158,777 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a monitoring system technique. See Spec. ¶ 0002. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method comprising: providing a metric reporting configuration interface for enabling configuration of metrics included in monitoring data collected for at least one monitored component; supporting, by said metric reporting configuration interface, defining of configuration parameters of at least one metric to be reported in monitoring data collected for the at least one monitored component; collecting monitoring data for the at least one monitored component; and reporting the monitoring data in accordance with the defined configuration parameters. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Laye US 2003/0120771 A1 June 26, 2003 The Rejection Claims 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Laye. Ans. 3-18. THE CONTENTIONS Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner maps Laye’s network communications links monitored by platform 110 to the recited monitored component and Laye’s communication link performance (e.g., usage, error rates, and service performance) to the recited monitoring data. Ans. 4, 20. Appeal 2010-008635 Application 11/158,777 3 Referring to paragraphs 0004 and 00122 in the Specification, Appellants argue the recited phrase, “monitored component,” has been defined and that Laye fails to disclose a monitored component and monitoring data as claimed when construed reasonably and consistently with the disclosure. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Laye discloses “at least one monitored component” and “monitoring data,” giving these terms their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification? ANALYSIS At the outset, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s position that the recited term, “monitored component,” has not been defined in the Specification. Ans. 20. The Specification only provides examples of a “monitored components 102” and has not explicitly defined this term. See Spec. ¶ 0012. The Specification also provides examples of metrics or monitoring data (Spec. ¶ 0004) but has not defined this data. Thus, while Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), indicates the disclosure is the primary basis for construing the claims (see Reply Br. 2), Phillips also states that the Federal Circuit “ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments [described in the Specification.]” Phillips, at 1323. The burden is on Appellants to provide a 2 Appellants refer to ¶ 0013, but the quoted language appears at ¶ 0012 of the disclosure. Appeal 2010-008635 Application 11/158,777 4 clear and explicit definition or disavowal of the recited “monitored component.” See id. at 1319-20; see also CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As stated above, Appellants have not met this burden. See App. Br. 7-9. Additionally, [t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find Appellants’ discussion of the monitored component in paragraph 12 only describes particular embodiments and conclude the recitation to a “monitored component” in claim 1 is broader than these embodiments. For example, Appellants discuss “a ‘monitored computing system’” and an “information processing device” (see Spec. ¶ 0012; see also Reply Br. 2) but have chosen not to limit claim 1 to such devices by only reciting a “monitored component.” We thus will not import these features into claim 1. Turning to Laye, the system network communications links monitored by platform 110 (Ans. 3, 20) is reasonably mapped to the recited “monitored component.” Additionally, Laye’s data obtained by monitoring these links (see Ans. 4-5, 21 (citing ¶¶ 0053, 0056 (describing parameters and discussing usage, error rates, and service performance)); see also App. Br. 9 (citing ¶ 0049 (describing the same parameters))) is reasonably mapped to the recited monitoring data. Notably, even though the phrase, “monitored component,” is not found in Laye (App. Br. 8), identity of terminology Appeal 2010-008635 Application 11/158,777 5 between Laye and claimed limitation is not required. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-36 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-36 under § 102. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 is 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 babc