Ex Parte Newton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201210401380 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRIS NEWTON and CHRIS CARTON ____________ Appeal 2010-006280 Application 10/401,380 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006280 Application 10/401,380 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 1-21. Appeal Brief 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction “The claimed invention relates to correlating network activity through visualizing network data.” Appeal Brief 7. Illustrative Claim 1. A method of correlating network activity through visualizing network data, said method comprising: classifying network traffic in dependence upon first and second parameters into first and second network traffic views, respectively; creating first and second view objects corresponding to the first and second network traffic views; logically combining the first and second view objects to provide a new view object; creating a new view corresponding to the new view object; establishing a list of entities for the new view object; and associating data flows for each of the entities with the new view, wherein the network traffic views provide a representation of the distribution of network traffic in accordance with each of the first and second parameters. Appeal 2010-006280 Application10/401,380 3 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Germain (U.S. Patent Number 6,900,822 B2; issued May 31, 2005). Answer 3-7. Issue on Appeal Does Germain fail to teach logically combining first and second view objects corresponding to first and second traffic views, wherein the combination results in a new view object with corresponding new view? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue that Germain does not teach logically combining first and second view objects to provide a new object as featured in independent Claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds that Appellants’ definition of “view” is nothing more than network traffic that meets a condition and that “view object” is merely a parameter for the condition. Answer 7. The Examiner further finds that based upon Appellants’ definition of “view”, the cited portions of Germain shows multiple conditions or views and therefore the claimed invention is not Appeal 2010-006280 Application10/401,380 4 distinguishable over Germain. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Appellants have not presented any rationale to the contrary. Appellants further argue that Germain does not teach displaying any data that is a function of a logical operator, such as an intersection, “let alone providing a new object (or defining a new view object) that is the result of a logical operation combing [sic] at least two view objects.” Appeal Brief 12. However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with scope of the invention because the claims do not state that the first and second view objects are combined via an “intersection” operator. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The Examiner finds that Appellants do not claim “a new view object created by intersection” but instead, claim a “logical operator.” Answer 8. The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification discloses “the term ‘logical operator’ covers an ‘or’ function.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Germain clearly teaches the use of an “or” logical operator and further finds that the “combination of showing traffic that features one metric (e.g. device load) or another metric (e.g. link throughput) satisfies the appellant’s definition of a logical operator that creates a new view object.” Id. Therefore we find that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation “logically combining” is reasonable. Appeal 2010-006280 Application10/401,380 5 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as independent claims 19, 20 and 21 for the same reasons as stated above. In regard to claim 18, the Examiner finds that Germain discloses using graphical request language designation to define view objects by combining the new view operators with logical operators and generating a new list of addresses. Answer 6. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Finally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-17, not separately argued, for the same reasons stated above. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-21 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation