Ex Parte Reeves et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2012

11205709 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MATTHEW S. REEVES, DARDA CHANG,
and ROLAND G. HORSTMAN
______________

Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM and DAVID M. KOHUT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 28.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an apparatus coupled to a network having
a plurality of ports. The ports have indicators associated with them that are
triggered by a message received over the communication system. See
Specification page 2. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a network component, coupled with a communication
network, having a plurality of network ports and a plurality of
visual indicators that correspond respectively to the plurality of
network ports; and
a message received over the communication network by
the network component, wherein the network component
triggers a respective visual indicator, of the plurality of visual
indicators, that corresponds to a selected port, of the plurality of
network ports, based on the message received over the
communication network.

REFERENCES
Dietrich US 4,689,610 Aug. 25, 1987
Whitmire US 6,167,403 Dec. 26, 2000
Martin US 2005/0149658 A1 Jul. 7, 2005
Sokol US 7,154,407 B2 Dec. 26, 2006

Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sokol in view of
Dietrich. Answer 3-8.1
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sokol in view of Dietrich and Martin. Answer 8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sokol in view of Dietrich and Whitmire. Answer
9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 16 through 24 and 26 through 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sokol in view of
Whitmire. Answer 10-13.
The Examiner has rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sokol in view of Whitmire and Martin. Answer
13-14.
ISSUES
Rejection based upon Sokol and Dietrich.
Appellants argue on pages 5 through 12 of the Brief2 that the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 14 is in error. Specifically, Appellants argue
that neither Sokol nor Dietrich teaches a message sent over the
communication network triggers a visual indicator as recited in claim 1, nor
does it teach a UID blinking as recited in claim 14. Brief 6-10. Further,

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
September 15, 2009.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 13, 2009
and Reply Brief dated November 13, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

4

Appellants argue that the references are non-analogous art. Brief 10-12.
These arguments present us with the following issues: Did the Examiner err
in finding that: a) the combination of Sokol and Dietrich teaches a message
triggering an indicator as recited in claim 1; b) the combination of Sokol and
Dietrich teaches UID blinking as recited in independent claim 14; and c) in
considering Sokol and Dietrich to be analogous art?

Rejection based upon Sokol and Dietrich combined with either Martin
or Whitmire.
Appellants argue on pages 12 and 13 of the Brief that these rejections
are in error for the reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 14, based upon the combination of Sokol and
Dietrich, and because the additional teachings of Martin and Whitmire do
not make up for the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Thus,
Appellants’ augments with respect to these rejections present us with the
same issues with respect to claims 1 and 14.

Rejection based upon Sokol and Whitmire
Appellants argue on pages 13 through 16 of the Brief that the rejection
of independent claim 16 is in error. Specifically, Appellants argue that, as
discussed with respect to claim 1, Sokol does not teach determining if a
request from a sender network involves a request to start blinking or stop
blinking. Brief 14. Further, Appellants assert that Whitmire does not
remedy this deficiency in Sokol, further Whitmire does not teach sending a
response back indicating receiving the request to start or stop blinking. Brief
15. Thus, Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claim 16
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

5

present us with the issues: Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Sokol and Whitmire teaches a) determining if a request is to
start or stop blinking, and b) sending a reply to the sender as recited in claim
16?

Rejection based upon Sokol, Whitmire and Martin.
Appellants argue on pages 15 and 16 of the Brief that these rejections
are in error for the reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of
independent claim 16. Thus, Appellants’ augments with respect to these
rejections present us with the same issues with respect to claim 16.

ANALYSIS
Rejection based upon Sokol and Dietrich.
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion the Examiner erred in finding a) the combination of Sokol and
Dietrich teaches a message triggering an indicator as recited in claim 1; b)
the combination of Sokol and Dietrich teaches UID blinking as recited in
independent claim 14; and c) in considering them to be analogous art.

a) The Examiner’s finding that the combination of Sokol and Dietrich
teaches a message triggering an indicator as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief and pages 1 and 2 of
the Reply Brief that the claim 1 recitation of a message should be interpreted
based upon the Specification’s definition that “a message is a request
specifically intended to trigger a respective visual indicator.” Brief 8, (citing
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

6

Specification p. 2). The Examiner has declined to import such a limitation
into the claim. Answer 15. We concur, and decline to import such
limitations from the Specification into the claim and note that the
Specification does not specifically define messages as asserted by
Appellants. Claim 1 recites that the visual indicator is triggered based upon
the message. The Examiner has found that this is taught in Sokol’s teaching
in the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3 and also in the first paragraphs of
column 4. Answer 4, 15. We concur with these findings by the Examiner
and further note that column 1, lines 29-33 also describe the LED displays
represent status of ports on the device. Thus, there is ample evidence to
support the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Sokol and Dietrich
teaches a message triggering an indicator as recited in claim 1.

b) The Examiner’s finding that the combination of Sokol and Dietrich
teaches UID blinking as recited in independent claim 14.
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of the Brief and page 2 of the
Reply Brief, that the claim 14 recitation of a message should be interpreted
based upon the Specification’s definition as that “UID blinking is a
technique ‘used to identify network adaptors within a server or to identify
the server itself.’” Brief 8 (citing Specification p. 1). The Examiner has
declined to import such a limitation into the claim. Answer 15 and 16. We
concur, and decline to import such limitations from the Specification into the
claim. Independent claim 14 merely recites “UID blinking that identifies
connections between the first and second network components.” The
Examiner has found that this is taught by Sokol’s teaching that LEDs blink
to indicate transmitting and receiving activity between components, showing
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

7

a connection. Answer 7 and 15. Further, we note that claim 14 does not
recite that the UID blinking is performed by the LEDs that correspond to the
network ports. Nonetheless, as discussed above, Sokol teaches that the
LEDs represent the status of the ports of the device, i.e. the blinking LEDs
representing transmitting/receiving correspond to the ports transmitting and
receiving. Thus, there is ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of Sokol and Dietrich teaches UID blinking as recited
in independent claim 14.

c) The Examiner’s finding that Sokol and Dietrich are analogous art.
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of the Brief that Sokol and Dietrich
are non-analogous art as Dietrich is concerned with an alarm apparatus and
not networks as defined in the Specification. Brief 11. The Examiner finds
that the references are both analogous as they are both related to monitoring
devices and providing status. Answer 4 and 16. Further, the Examiner finds
that Dietrich, while directed to an alarm system, involves an alarm system
which communicates over a network. Answer 4. Thus, we find ample
evidence to support the Examiners’ findings that the references both relate to
analogous art in that they both deal with monitoring devices and providing
status updates and both make use of a communications network.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claims
1 through 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon over
Sokol and Dietrich have not persuaded us of error and we sustain the
rejection.

Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

8

Rejection based upon Sokol and Dietrich combined with either Martin
or Whitmire.
As discussed above, Appellants argue that these rejections are in error
for the reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of independent claims
1 and 14. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claims 1 and 14, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Sokol, Dietrich and Martin, and the rejection of
claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Sokol in view of
Dietrich and Whitmire.

Rejection based upon Sokol and Whitmire
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Sokol and
Whitmire teaches a) determining if a request is to start or stop blinking and
b) sending a reply to the sender as recited in claim 16. The Examiner finds
that Sokol teaches a signal is sent from one device to another which
indicates a status of a port and that signal is processed to determine if the
LEDs should start or stop blinking. Answer 17-18. We concur, while the
purpose of the status signal (a message) may not only be to cause the LED to
start or stop blinking, the signal nonetheless results in the LED starting or
stopping blinking. Further, the Examiner finds that Whitmire teaches a
response is sent from the receiver of a message to the sender acknowledging
receipt and that contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the claim does not recite
sending a reply that the request to start blinking or stop blinking is received.
Answer 18. We concur. Claim 16 recites three steps: receiving a request;
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

9

determining if the request is for start/stop blinking; and responding to the
request. The step of responding is not recited as related to the request to
start or stop blinking. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that Whitmire’s teaching of sending a reply does not meet the claim.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of calims16 through 24
and 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Sokol and
Whitmire.

Rejection based upon Sokol, Whitmire and Martin.
As discussed above, Appellants argue that this rejection is in error for
the reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of independent claim 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim16,
we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sokol in view of Whitmire and Martin.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Sokol, Whitmire and Martin.

SUMMARY
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 28.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 28 is
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).
Appeal 2010-002380
Application 11/205,709

10

AFFIRMED

msc