Ex Parte Graves et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 18, 201210959007 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAVID ANDREW GRAVES and SREERUPA SEN ____________ Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE L. BARRY, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-22. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 2 INVENTION The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal. 1. A method of verifying network routing information, the method comprising: accessing a machine-readable map that describes a first network route associated with a network router; accessing the network router to obtain network routing information describing a second network route; comparing the machine-readable map with the network routing information; determining whether there are any differences between the machine-readable map and the network routing information; and provided there is one or more differences, generating a report that includes a message describing the one or more differences. REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (Application Pub.) No. 2002/0141346 Al ("Garcia"). Claims 6, 13, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia and U.S. Patent No. 7,206,289 B2 ("Hamada"). Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 3 DISCUSSION Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21 on the basis of claim 1 and the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 13, 20, and 22 on the basis of claim 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 on the basis of representative claim 3. See id. ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, AND 21 AND OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 13, 20, AND 22 The issue before us follows: did the Examiner err in finding that Garcia would have taught the limitations of representative claim 1 and that Garcia and Hamada would have suggested the limitations of representative claim 6? The Examiner finds that Garcia teaches the limitations of claim 1 and that Garcia and Hamada would have suggested the limitations of claim 6. (Ans. 3-4, 5-6.) The Appellants argue that "[a]s described with reference to steps 605 and 610 of flowchart 600, an embodiment of the present invention is capable of determining whether the subnet mask has been replaced with an un- authorized modification. . . . Garcia does not teach or suggest this feature." (App. Br. 10.) "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 4 into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321(Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here, the Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the limitations of representative claims 1 or 6. The Appellants argue limitations not recited in the claims. We decline to read the argued limitations into the claims from the Specification. The Appellants also use the Reply Brief to introduce the following new arguments with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16: "Garcia does not disclose correcting network routing information, but simply discloses disseminating the link information that offers the shortest distance from the router i to the head node m of the link." (Reply Br. 1.) "Any bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived." Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). See also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.") (citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the Examiner's findings that Garcia teaches the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 (Ans. 4.) are identical to those in the Final Rejection (p. 3), from which the instant appeal was taken. Because the findings are identical, we find nothing that would have prompted the new argument in the Reply Brief. The Appellants could have made the argument in their Appeal Brief. The term "Reply Brief" is exactly that, a brief in reply to new rejections or new arguments set forth in an Examiner’s Answer. The Appellants may not present arguments in a piecemeal fashion, holding back Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 5 arguments until an examiner answers the original brief. This basis for asserting error is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Garcia would have taught the limitations of representative claim 1 and that Garcia and Hamada would have suggested the limitations of representative claim 6. ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 11, AND 17 The issue before us follows: did the Examiner err in finding that Garcia would have taught the limitations of representative claim 3. Representative claim 3 recites: "[t]he method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising: generating a script of instructions for correcting the network routing information provided there is the one or more differences." We agree with the Examiner's findings that Garcia's Figures 1- 4 comprise a script of instructions. (Ans. 7.) More specifically, Garcia's Figures 1-4 show pseudocode procedures INIT-PDA, NTU, MTU, and MPDA, respectively. (Garcia ¶¶ [0057]-[0060].) The Appellants argue against different parts of the reference, viz., "that [the] information [in the Garcia's LSU messages] is [not] in the form of a script language . . . ." (Reply Br. 4.) "Arguing about different parts of the reference that those aforementioned 'do[es] not . . . explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error.'" Ex parte Nanja, 2011 WL 1826811, at *3 (BPAI May 9, 2011)(quoting Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).) Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Garcia would have taught the limitations of representative claim 3. Appeal 2010-002037 Application 10/959,007 6 DECISION We affirm the rejection of claim 1 and that of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21, which fall therewith. We affirm the rejection of claim 6 and that of claims 13, 20, and 22, which fall therewith. We affirm the rejection of claim 3 and that of claims 10 and 17, which fall therewith. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation