Ex Parte Ameti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13184191 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/184,191
97928 7590
Zebra/ Alston & Bird
101 S. Tryon Street
Suite 4000
FILING DATE
07/15/2011
08/16/2016
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AitanAmeti
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
054054/408060 9867
EXAMINER
KADING, JOSHUA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
jonathan.thomas@alston.com
IP _Legal@zebra.com
USPTOmail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AITAN AMETI and EDWARD A. RICHLEY
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-50.
We affirm.
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal is directed to relaying
an attribute request upstream along a series string of receivers, in order to
determine a configuration of network nodes (Spec. 6).
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
Representative Claims
1. A method comprising:
generating a node attribute information segment; and
adding the node attribute information segment to an
attribute information message at a position within the attribute
information message indicative of a position of a node within a
series string of communications connections.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising
receiving the attribute information message from an upstream
node within the series string of communications connections.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein adding the node
attribute information segment includes adding the node attribute
information segment to the attribute information message, the
attribute information message being defined such that a relative
position of each upstream node is determinable from an ordering
of node attribute information segments within the attribute
information message.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further
comprises detecting the presence or absence of a connection on
an upstream communications port to determine whether the node
is at an end of the series string of communications connections.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein adding the node
attribute information segment includes adding the node attribute
information segment without performing any decoding of the
attribute information message.
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-34, 36--42, and 44-50 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Leitch (WO 2005/031383 Al; publ.
Apr. 7, 2005). Final Act. 4-10.
Claims 4, 17, 35, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leitch and Adrian Mills, Manchester encoding
2
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
using RD232 (www.summitelectronics.co.uk (Rev 2.0)) (Nov. 3, 2005)
("Mills"). Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
Arguments in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in the
Appeal Brief to rebut rejections made in the Final Office Action are waived
and not considered. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative decision) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not").
Rejection of Claims 1, 14, 28, 32, 40, and 48 under§ 102(b)
Issue 1: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Leitch reference expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitation of:
adding the node attribute information segment to an
attribute information message at a position within the attribute
information message indicative of a position of a node within a
series string of communications connections
within the meaning of representative claim 1? (emphasis added).
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1,
14, 28, 32, 40, and 48 rejected on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue the Examiner misinterprets the phrase "series string
of communication connections" and contrasts the generally accepted
definition of a "serial or series arrangement" (App. Br. 11 ). In particular,
Appellants argue that a series string of communications would be arranged
such that there is one path of communication connections between the
3
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
devices connected in series as illustrated in Appellants' Figure 1, whereas
Leitch teaches a mesh or grid arrangement with multiple paths (App.
Br. 12-13).
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim
language. The claim does not state that there is only one possible path of
communication connections, or that each node is only connected to an
upstream node and a downstream node. Appellants also have support in the
specification for "multiple series strings of receivers" (Spec. iJ 32) which
also indicates the possibility that Appellants may wish to claim a different
multi-path node configuration than that of Appellants' Figure 1.
"[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings made by
the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and reasoning for
emphasis as follows.
4
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
Figure 9 of Leitch is reproduced below:
Figure 9 illustrates a forward transition of a second set of messages to
neighboring nodes (Leitch 4).
First, we agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that
the series string of communications in Leitch can be construed as a single
path of forward transitions (i.e., 4-1 ~ 4-4 or 4-1 ~ 4-5) within a mesh
which is one of the several possible paths shown above. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Leitch Figs. 5 and 7-9 and 9:5-16). As also depicted above, we conclude
that having more than one possible series string of communications
connections is not inconsistent with the claim and may be interpreted to
correspond to any one ofLeitch's possible multiple paths from nodes 4-1 to
4-9 shown in Figure 9, for example, 4-1 ~ 4-5 ~ 4-9, giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification 1.
1 "[A ]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
those embodiments . . . . [C]laims may embrace 'different subject matter
than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification."'
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)
(citations omitted). A basic canon of claim construction is that one may not
5
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
Regarding Appellants' related argument (App. Br. 14) that Leitch
cannot teach that a node attribute information segment's position within the
attribute information message is indicative of a position of the node within a
series string of communications connections because each message may
return to the initial node via different routes, we agree with the Examiner
that each route in Leitch is nevertheless represented by a respective message
containing entries indicative of the relative position of each node within its
respective route (Ans. 4). We also agree with the Examiner's further finding
that a position of a node in a series string of communications paths can be
determined by the order of the node attribute information segment added by
that node in the message (id.), and we note a sequential ordering of the node
attribute information exists for a particular path shown in Figure 8 of Leitch
which has been indicated by the Examiner (id.). Therefore, the attribute
information position in the information message is necessarily fixed by its
position within that respective route and thus is indicative of its position
within that respective route as pointed out by the Examiner (id.).
We are satisfied that the cited disclosure of Leitch describes the
disputed limitations of claim 1. It follows that Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Leitch.
Because claims 14, 28, 32, 40, and 48 are not argued separately, they
fall together with claim 1 for the same reasons discussed above. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
read a limitation into a claim from the written description. Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
6
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
Rejection of Claims 2 and 7 under§ 102(b)
Issue 2: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Leitch reference expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitation of:
receiving the attribute information message from an upstream
node within the series string of communications connections
within the meaning of representative claim 2, and
the attribute information message being defined such that a
relative position of each upstream node is determinable from an
ordering of node attribute information segments within the
attribute information message
within the meaning of representative claim 7? (emphases added).
Appellants present several arguments that Leitch fails to the
limitations of dependent claims 2 and 7, however, these are based on the
underlying argument that Leitch does not disclose a series string of
communication connections. App. Br. 21-24; Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner
responds that Leitch is not deficient and points out where Leitch teaches or
suggests the limitations of claims 2 and 7 in a manner similar to the related
arguments for claim 1. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner, and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusion about how an upstream node is
disclosed, and how the placement of the entry within the message is
indicative of the order of the nodes (id.).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of
claims 2 and 7.
Rejection of Claim 12 under§ 102(b)
Issue 3: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Leitch reference expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitation of:
7
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
detecting the presence or absence of a connection on an
upstream communications port to determine whether the node is
at an end of the series string of communications connections
within the meaning of claim 12? (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the presence or lack of a particular node's entry
in the messages returned to the starting node merely indicates if the
particular message traversed a particular node, and that the "timing
attributes" at most indicate a distance between nodes and not whether a node
is at the end of a series string of communications (App. Br. 25).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that because the claim does not
recite any specific way in which the presence or absence of a connection is
determined, the claim does not exclude the interpretation that an end is
indicated by the presence or absence of a message entry within the
respective string of communications (Ans. 7). Therefore, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's interpretation under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim language and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Rejection of Claim 13 under§ 102(b)
Issue 4: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Leitch reference expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitation of:
wherein adding the node attribute information segment includes
adding the node attribute information segment without
performing any decoding of the attribute information message
within the meaning of representative claim 13? (emphasis added).
Appellants allege that in order for the node to store and use the
messages received, the node must be decoding the message, and thus Leitch
8
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
fails to disclose adding the node attribute information segment without
performing any decoding of the attribute information message (App. Br. 26).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the negative language of
claim 13 does not explicitly describe decoding in a manner that precludes a
node attribute information segment from being prepared by successively
adding entries after a first entry (Ans. 8 (citing Leitch 9:5-16)). In addition,
the Examiner considers storing the message after adding information to be
irrelevant (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner and for these reasons we
are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's interpretation of claim 13.
Rejection of Claim 38 under§ 102(b)
Issue 5: Under § 102(b ), did the Examiner err by finding the cited
Leitch reference expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitation of:
wherein determining the position includes determining the
position of the node based on an ordering of the node attribute
information segment \'l1ithin the attribute information message,
wherein the position of the node attribute information segment
within the attribute information message is inversely related to
the position of the node within the series string of
communications connections
within the meaning of representative claim 3 8? (emphasis added).
According to Appellants, "the later positioned entries in Leitch's
message at most merely indicate the nodes that the message traveled through
more recently in its path through the network" (App. Br. 27-28). Further,
"the position of an entry in Leitch's message is not inversely related to the
position of the node within the series string of communications connections,
but rather merely indicates the order of the nodes in the path through which
the particular message traveled (id.).
9
Appeal2015-001901
Application 13/184,191
We agree with the Examiner that the closer the node generating a
respective entry is to the originating node, the older the timing information
which leads to a reverse chronological ordering (Ans. 8), and therefore we
conclude that the Examiner has not erred with respect to the rejection of
claim 38.
Rejection of Remaining Claims 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18-34, 36, 37, 39--42,
and 44-50 under§ 102(b) and Claims 4, 17, 35, and 43 under§ 103(a).
Appellants present no new arguments regarding the remaining claims,
and they fall together with claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, and 38 for the same reasons
discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of all claims 1-50.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-34, 36-
42, and 44-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4, 17, 35, and 43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10