Ex Parte Sim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

11779919 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111779,919 07/19/2007 Soon Peng Jason Sim
56436 7590 04/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82229603 3080
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, KASHIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOON PENG JASON SIM,
CHEE YUNG TAN, KUM CHEONG ADAM CHAN,
KOON GEE HO, CHI HOCK GOH,
CHEN CHIN JIMMY WONG, WEE YI LEE,
KOH YEW THOON, and LAY WEI ANG 1
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10-19 (claims 9 and 20 were cancelled). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a
wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Introduction
Appellants describe that their "disclosure relates to a network switch,
more particularly, the disclosure relates to systems and methods for
communicating with a network switch." Spec. 1 ("Technical Field").
Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the claimed subject matter at issue:
1. A wireless system comprising:
a network switch rack comprising a plurality of network
switches; and
a wireless interface device that identifies a faulty
network switch, determines a location of the faulty network
switch within the network switch rack using information
obtained wirelessly from said faulty network switch, and
displays at least a portion of the information obtained on a
display device,
wherein the wireless interface device is further to
change a configuration of the faulty network switch.
5. The \~\rireless system as defined in claim 1, \~1herein the
information associated with the faulty network switch further
includes a switch type information describing the type of
network switch and the service that the faulty network switch
provides.
App. Br. 15-16 (Claims App'x).
Rejections
Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Garnett (US 2003/0050998 Al; Mar. 13, 2003),
Rothman (US 2008/0114865 Al; May 15, 2008), and Sinko (US 2007/
0220252 Al; Sept. 20, 2007). Final Act. 3-9.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Garnett, Rothman, Sinko, and Linksys® 2.4 GHz Wireless-G
2
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Broadband Router with SpeedBooster User Guide, Model No. WRT54GS
(Copyright© 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc.) ("Linksys"). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments of Examiner error. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and
adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-10) and (2) the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2---6) in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. 2
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding Sinko teaches claim 1 's
"wherein the wireless interface device is further to change a configuration
of the faulty network switch" requirement. App. Br. 8-1 O; Reply Br. 4--7.
Appellants contend "Sinko merely discusses that the ACL of a wireless
access point can be edited online or via the Internet. However, editing an
ACL of an access point via the Internet is not the same as using a wireless
interface device to wirelessly control the access point." App. Br. 8 (citing
Sinko ii 5).
The Examiner answers that the rejection relies upon "the service
device 700 of Garnett (Fig. 19) as being the wireless interface device,"
Ans. 9; see Final Act. 4, and Sinko ii 5 for "teach[ing] that a wireless access
point (i.e. a switch) can be configured by a user." Ans. 10; see Final Act. 5.
2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Appellants, in reply, argue Sinko's paragraph 5 discloses "that a user
may change the access control list (ACL) of a wireless access point by
accessing the web page of the wireless access point. However, a user is not
a wireless interface device." Reply 5.
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error. In particular,
Appellants do not contest or otherwise address the Examiner's finding that
Garnett teaches claim 1 's "wireless interface device." Each reference cited
by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner that to
access the web page of the wireless access point, Sinko teaches or suggests
using a device that is analogous to the wireless interface device of Garnett.
See Ans. 10-11.
Appellants further argue that "editing the ACL of an access point, as
discussed in Sinko, does not change the configuration of the access point"
and "[t]hus, Sinko does not teach or suggest fixing or changing a
configuration of a faulty access point or a faulty network switch on a rack."
App. Br. 9. The Examiner answers that Sinko's "changing a MAC filter
reads on changing a configuration of a network switch" and that Appellant
"appears to interpret configuration narrowly, however, the language of the
claim is broad[]." Ans. 12. Appellants, in reply, argue that because Sinko
does not disclose a faulty wireless access point, even if it changes the
configuration of a switch, it does not change the configuration of a faulty
switch. Reply Br. 5-6.
We agree with the Examiner that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of "configuration," consistent with the use of that term in
4
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Appellants' Specification and Claims, editing a switch's access control list,
as in Sinko, constitutes changing the configuration of the switch. Further,
we find unpersuasive Appellants' argument based on Sinko purportedly not
teaching changing the configuration of a faulty switch. The rejection relies
on Garnett, not Sinko, for teaching identifying a faulty network switch.
Final Act. 4 (citing Garnett i-fi-1212-13, Fig. 19). We agree with the
Examiner that Sinko, which teaches devices that change configurations of
network switches, in combination with Garnett, with its wireless interface
device and faulty network switch disclosure, teaches or suggests the disputed
"wherein the wireless interface device is further to change a configuration of
the faulty network switch" claim requirement. See Ans. 9-11.
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
rejections of claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-16, 18, and 19, which Appellants argue
based solely on arguments made for claim 1. App. Br. 11; see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(sustaining requirement that appellants articulate particular arguments to
obtain separate review on appeal).
Claim 5
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the Linksys reference
teaches the requirements of claim 5 because
logging in to a web page to view the type of a switch and to
select a service of the switch, as allegedly discussed in Linksys,
is not the same as using a wireless interface device to wirelessly
receive information from a network switch describing the type
and the services of the network switch, as recited in claim 5.
Linksys may have a web page that shows the type and services
of a switch, but Linkys [sic] does not disclose a network switch
that wirelessly provides information describing the type and
services of the network switch to a wireless interface device.
5
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
Therefore, Linksys fails to teach or suggest, "wherein the
information associated with the faulty network switch further
includes a switch type information describing the type of
network switch and the service that the faulty network switch
provides," as recited in claim 5.
App. Br. 13 (emphasis added).
The Examiner's Answer does not respond to Appellants' arguments.
Appellants state in the Reply "[a]s such, the Examiner appears to implicitly
agree with the Appellants' arguments." Reply Br. 7. We disagree. There is
no indication the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection and there is no
presumption of agreement based on the Examiner's failure to explicitly
refute Appellants' arguments. Instead, it is reasonable for the Examiner's
Answer not to address an argument that a rejection is in error when, for
example, the argument fails to address the substance of the rejection. Here,
by arguing for claim 5 that the Linksys reference does not include certain
"wireless" requirements that appear in claim 1, and for which the Examiner
relies upon Garnett (not Linksys), Appellants argue issues unrelated to the
subject rejection of claim 5. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the
Linksys reference teaches the added requirements of claim 5. Final Act. 9--
10.
We accordingly affirm the rejection of claim 5. We also affirm the
rejection of claim 17, which Appellants argue together with claim 5. App.
Br. 13.
6
Appeal2014-006942
Application 11/779,919
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-8 and 10-19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7