Ex Parte Stamler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2007

10434586 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte ARNOLD STAMLER and IKRAMULLAH MOHAMMAD
___________

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586
Technology Center 3600
___________

May 15, 2007
___________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STUART S. LEVY and ANTON W. FETTING,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-36, the only claims
pending in this application, arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We REVERSE.

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

The Appellants invented a means for deploying network devices, more
specifically for providing automatic provisioning for modular network devices
(Specification 1). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1. A method of automatically providing inventory information
describing a modular network device to a network management point,
the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
by instructions executed in the modular network device, creating and
storing inventory information for the modular network device for use
by the management point, wherein the network management point
comprises a server configured to receive the inventory information
from the device, update a database of configuration information,
automatically generate a permanent configuration for the device based
on the inventory messages, and communicate the permanent
configuration to the device, wherein the inventory information
comprises one or more absolute interface references that identify
physical slot locations of one or more interfaces in the modular
network device, and wherein creation of the inventory information is
self-initiated by the device without receiving a request for inventory
from the management point; and
communicating the inventory in a request for a permanent
configuration that is sent from the modular network device to a
management point through a network, wherein communication of the
inventory information to the management point is self-initiated by the
device without receiving a request for inventory from the management
point.

This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed October 21,
2005. The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on July 7,
2006, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on
October 6, 2006. A Reply Brief was filed on December 11, 2006.
2

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

PRIOR ART 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Sidhu US 5,150,464 Sep. 22, 1992
Brown US 6,430,541 B1 Aug. 6, 2002

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, and 31-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sidhu.
Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Sidhu and official notice of notoriety of XML.
Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sidhu and Brown.

ISSUES
The issues pertinent to this appeal are
• Whether the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sidhu is
proper (Br. 16-25).
o Whether Sidhu shows the inventory information comprising one or
more absolute interface references that identify physical slot locations
of one or more interfaces in the modular network device (Br. 16-18;
Reply Br. 4-5; All claims).
3

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

• Whether the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sidhu and
official notice of notoriety of XML and Sidhu in view of Brown are proper
(Br. 25-27).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

In particular, the Appellants contend that nothing in Sidhu suggests that a
network address can refer to or contain physical slot locations of interfaces (Br. 17;
Reply Br. 4-5).

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following Findings of Fact (FF), supported by a preponderance of
substantial evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
01. All four independent claims require that a server receive information
regarding one or more absolute interface references that identify physical
slot locations of one or more interfaces.
02. The specification contains no lexicographic definition of the word
“slot” or the phrase “physical slot.”
03. A slot has several definitions, the ones pertinent to the subject matter
at hand being either an assigned place in a sequence or schedule, or an
expansion slot1. Only the definition as an expansion slot is specifically
identified as within the context of computer science.
04. The Examiner contends that Sidhu describes a router as a server that
receives information regarding one or more network addresses as

1 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, 2000.
4

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

absolute network interface references that identify nodes as physical slot
locations of one or more interfaces (Answer 3 and 6-7).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
05. Sidhu’s network node meets the definition of a slot as an assigned
place in a sequence or schedule, but it is not an expansion slot.
06. The Appellants’ contentions regarding physical slots are consistent
with and even solicit the construction of this phrase as slots within an
expansion chassis (Br. 17; Reply Br. 4-5).
07. Thus all of the independent claims require that a server receive
information regarding one or more absolute interface references that
identify physical expansion slot locations of one or more interfaces.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, and 31-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sidhu.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, supported by a preponderance of
substantial evidence, we conclude that
o Sidhu does not show the inventory information comprising one or
more absolute interface references that identify physical slot locations
of one or more interfaces in the modular network device (FF 05 &
07).
Thus, Sidhu lacks an element recited in all of the claims and cannot support a
rejection based on novelty. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sidhu.
5

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sidhu
and official notice of notoriety of XML.
The Examiner’s application of XML does not make up for the deficiency of
Sidhu discussed above, namely, the absence of a physical expansion chassis slot.
Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 12, 21, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sidhu and official notice of notoriety of
XML.

Claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sidhu
and Brown.
Nothing within Brown, particularly regarding XML, makes up for the
deficiency of Sidhu discussed above, namely, the absence of a physical expansion
chassis slot. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3,
12, 21, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sidhu and Brown.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
• The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sidhu is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sidhu and official notice of notoriety of XML is not sustained.
6

Appeal 2007-1668
Application 10/434,586

• The rejection of claims 3, 12, 21, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sidhu and Brown is not sustained.
1
2
REVERSED 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

vsh

HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 550
SAN JOSE CA 95110
7