Ex Parte Sexton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2013

10672043 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL WHITE SEXTON, SCOTT CHARLES EVANS,
and MARC ROBERT PEARLMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-000324
Application 10/672,043
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000324
Application 10/672,043

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a network communication device for
bi-directional communication networks (see Spec. ¶ [0005]).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A network communication device for bi-
directional communication networks, comprising:
a first portion communicably connectable to a first point
and a second point on the bi-directional communication
network, said first portion being configured to manage
collisions among a first set of messages transmittable from said
first point to said second point; and
a second portion communicably connectable, in parallel
with said first portion, to said first point and said second point,
said second portion being configured to transmit free of
collision management a second set of messages transmittable
from said second point to said first point.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Scott (US 5,953,340). (See Ans. 4-8).

Appeal 2011-000324
Application 10/672,043

3
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Scott’s switch
module 172 and repeater module 176, as described in column 9 and depicted
in Figure 5, teach the claimed first and second portion (Ans. 4-5). The
Examiner further finds that the connection between the first and second
domains 14 and 16, as shown in Figure 4, which are coupled to the adaptive
networking device 151, meets the claimed first and second portions
connectable on a bi-directional communication network (id.).
Appellants contend that the operation of the adaptive networking
devices 151 and 152 of the embodiment shown in Figures 4 and 5 of Scott is
similar to that of the adaptive repeater 12 of Figures 1 and 2, wherein the
only connection between the two domains is through the bridge ports 38a
and 38b (App. Br. 6-7). Appellants further point out that the description of
these embodiments in columns 5-7 of Scott confirms that data from one
domain to the other is transmitted via the bridges 40 and 42 or their
corresponding ports 38a and 38b, which is contrary to the Examiner’s
characterization of the embodiments depicted in Scott’s Figures 5 and 6 (see
App. Br. 8-9).
We agree with Appellants’ contention above that the adaptive repeater
12 of Figures 1 and 2 provides connection between the two domains through
the bridge ports 38a and 38b. However, we disagree with Appellants’
contention (Reply Br. 5-6) that the presence of the converter 174 in Figure 6
between Scott’s switch module 172 and repeater module 176 is of no
consequence. To the extent that Scott’s disclosure describes the
embodiments shown in Figures 1 and 2, we agree with Appellants that the
communication between the two domains is via the bridge ports 38a and 38b
Appeal 2011-000324
Application 10/672,043

4
(see Scott, col. 5, ll. 51-61 and col. 6, ll. 4-12). On the other hand, as stated
by the Examiner (Ans. 11), the bridge ports 38a and 38b are not required for
the embodiment of Figure 4 (see Scott, col. 8, ll. 37-40 (“the adaptive
networking device 151 may optionally include . . . the bridge ports . . ., if
desired.”)).
Therefore, we do not agree with Appellants’ position that, even in the
embodiment shown in Figure 6 of Scott, the only connection between the
two domains is through the bridge ports (Reply Br. 6-7). In fact, this
embodiment provides for conversion of data in the first protocol sent from
any device in the first domain 14 that is intended for any device in the
second domain 16 (and vice versa) by transmitting such data to the converter
174 which re-transmits the data according to the second protocol (see Scott,
col. 10, ll. 36-58). In other words, the presence of converter 174 meets the
recited parallel portions for communicably connecting first and second
points which are in the first and second domains 14 and 16 of Scott.
Appellants rely on the same reasoning discussed above to argue the
patentability of independent claims 10 and 18 and rely on their dependency
from claims 1, 10, and 18 to assert the patentability of the remaining
dependent claims, allowing these claims to fall with claim 1 (App. Br. 13).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, because Scott discloses the disputed
limitation of claim 1, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1, as well as claims 2-20 as anticipated by Scott.

Appeal 2011-000324
Application 10/672,043

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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).

AFFIRMED

ELD