Ex Parte Archer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

11737229 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES J. ARCHER
and
MARK G. MEGERIAN
____________

Appeal 2012-002700
Application 11/737,229
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims 14–20 is directed to non-statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the

Appeal 2012-002700
Application 11/737,229

2
Examiner found on page 5 of the Answer pertaining to whether the claims
are broad enough to cover forms of transitory propagating signals that store
information.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’
claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is unpatentable over
the combination of Tonelli (US 5,821,937; iss. Oct. 13, 1998) in view of Lee
(US 7,027,413 B2; iss. Apr. 11, 2006); the subject matter of claims 2, 4, 7, 9,
11, 13, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is unpatentable over Tonelli
in view of Lee and Bhanot (US 2006/0101104 A1; pub. May 11, 2006); and
the subject matter of claims 5, 6, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
unpatentable over Tonelli in view of Lee and Brisse (US 2003/0055932 A1;
pub. Mar. 20, 2003). In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of
the Examiner pertaining to whether Lee discloses identifying a shortest
cabling path beginning at the selected cabled node ending at the selected
cabled node itself. We also adopt the Examiner’s response to the
Appellants’ arguments, as found on pages 14–15 of the Answer.
We add, for emphasis only, that we find that counting the number of
nodes in a path in an interconnection path from a selected cabled node, away
and then back to the selected cabled node by causing each cabled node along
the way to identify itself, as taught by Lee, to be a way of identifying a
shortest cabling path, as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2012-002700
Application 11/737,229

3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh