Ex Parte Brost et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 201311627821 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/627,821 01/26/2007 Ronald Brost 20103/2006-350 2658 83417 7590 12/31/2013 AT&T Legal Department - HFZ ATTN. Patent Docketing One AT&T Way Room 2A-207 Bedminstor, NJ 07921 EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RONALD BROST, GOANGSHIUAN SHAWN YING, STEPHEN ASPELL, EUGENE L. EDMON, and RENEE C. ESTES ____________________ Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, 49, and 50. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 Claims 2, 8, 13, and 19-48 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to methods to maintain communication services during a power failure. Spec. 1-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method to maintain communication services during a power failure, the method comprising: detecting a loss of power at a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem with a modem power controller; detecting a power switch status of the DSL modem with the modem power controller; and when the power switch status is in an on state, transmitting a message indicative of the power switch status along a subscriber line to a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM). REFERENCES Kim Meyer Zuranski Huyge Posthuma Fung US 5,973,061 US 2001/0038343 A1 US 6,430,219 B1 US 2004/0034872 Al US 2004/0213404 Al US 2009/0235104 Al Aug. 10, 1999 Nov. 8, 2001 Aug. 6, 2002 Feb. 19, 2004 Oct. 28, 2004 Sept. 17,2009 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obviousover the combination of Posthuma and Huyge. Ans. 3-8. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Kim. Ans. 8-9. Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 3 Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Meyer. Ans. 9-10. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Zuranski. Ans. 10-11. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Fung. Ans. 11. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Posthuma and Huyge teaches or suggests “when the power switch status is in an on state, transmitting a message indicative of the power switch status along a subscriber line to a digital subscriber line access multiplier (DSLAM),” as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Posthuma and Huyge teaches or suggests “receiving, at a power monitor, a dying gasp message from a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem, via a subscriber line, the message indicative of a loss of electrical power to the modem and including DSL modem power switch position information,” as recited in claim 12? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Zuranski teaches or suggests “reducing a clock rate of the DSL modem in response to detecting the loss of power when the power switch status is in the on state,” as recited in claim 49? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 4 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 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 rejection of the claims and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 Claim 1 recites, “when modem power switch status is in an on state, transmitting a message indicative of the power switch status along a subscriber line to a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM).” The Examiner finds that Posthuma teaches transmitting a dying gasp message indicative of a DSL modem power status along a subscriber line to a DSLAM (Ans. 4 and 12 (citing Posthuma, ¶¶ [0020]-[0021] and [0025])) and that the dying gasp message implicitly indicates a power status of the modem as “On”, since the device is always on. Ans. 12-13 (citing Posthuma, ¶ [0004]). The Examiner also finds that Huyge teaches a DSL modem with a pushbutton power switch for controlling on/off power status. Ans. 4 and 12 (citing Huyge, ¶¶ [0015]-[0017]). Thus, it is the combination of Posthuma and Huyge that teachesthe disputed limitation, and not solely Huyge. Ans. 4 and 12-13. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants argue that Huyge’s power switch does not provide an indication of the power switch status in an on state (App. Br. 10 and Reply Br. 5) and fails to teach or suggest transmitting a message indicative of the power switch status when a DSL modem power switch status is in an on state. App. Br. 11. As discussed supra, the rejection is based on the Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 5 combination of the references, and as such, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error on part of the Examiner because these arguments are tantamount to attacking the references individually. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants also argue that the Examiner fails to provide a clear articulation of the reasons, i.e., a clear motivation, for the combination of Posthuma and Huyge. App. Br. 11-12. We disagree. The Supreme Court stated that an explicitly stated motivation to combine the references is seen as “helpful insight,” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), but that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 416. Posthuma teaches a method to maintain communication services during a power failure that includes detecting loss of power at a DSL modem and transmitting a dying gasp message indicative of modem power status to a DSLAM. Ans. 3-4 and 12. Huyge teaches a DSL modem pushbutton power switch. Ans. 4 and 12. Both of the references deal with DSL communications. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4 and 13) and we consider combining Huyge’s power switch with the modem in Posthuma’s method as nothing more than combining a known component with a known device yielding the predictable result of switching a device on and off. Ans. 13. In this case, the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are clearly articulated and are based on detailed factual findings that are supported by the references of record. Ans. 3-4 and 12-13. Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 6 Thus, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3-7 and 9-11, which Appellants do not argue separately with particularity. App. Br. 12-13. Claims 12, 14-18, and 50 Appellants make similar arguments for claim 12 as with claim 1. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6-7. For the reasons stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12, and dependent claims 14-18 and 50, which Appellants do not argue separately with particularity. App. Br. 13. Claim 49 Dependent claim 49 recites, “reducing the clock rate of the DSL modem in response to detecting the loss of power when the power switch status is in the on state.” The Examiner finds that Posthuma teaches conserving power in a DSL modem in response to detecting a loss of power (Ans. 14-15 (citing Posthuma, ¶ [0025])) and Huyge teaches a pushbutton power switch to place the device in the on state. Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds that Zuranski teaches slowing or stopping clock signals in a DSL modem to reduce power consumption in a no-power mode. Ans. 10 and 15 (citing Zuranski, col. 6, ll. 41-53). Therefore, the Examiner finds that it is the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Zuranski that teachesthe disputed limitation. Ans. 10 and 14-15. Appellants argue that Zuranski describes slowing or stopping clock signals when in a sleep mode, but fails to teach that these actions are “in response to detecting the loss of power when the power switch status is in the on state.” App. Br. 13 and Reply Br. 7-8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because it attacks Zuranski individually, when the Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 7 Examiner has, in fact, relied upon the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Zuranski for the rejection. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “it would have been obvious to incorporate a known technique for conserving power ([i.e.,] Zuranski's slowing/stopping clock in a DSL modem) to improve a similar device ([i.e.,] Posthuma's DSL modem that needs to conserve power) in the same way ([i.e., to] reduce power consumption).” Ans. 15. Specifically, we conclude that the combination amounts to “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 49. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Posthuma and Huyge teaches or suggests “when the power switch status is in an on state, transmitting a message indicative of the power switch status along a subscriber line to a digital subscriber line access multiplier (DSLAM),” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Posthuma and Huyge teaches or suggests “receiving, at a power monitor, a dying gasp message from a digital subscriber line (DSL) modem via a subscriber line, the message indicative of a loss of electrical power to the modem and Appeal 2011-005703 Application 11/627,821 8 including DSL modem power switch position information,” as recited in claim 12. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Posthuma, Huyge, and Zuranski teaches or suggests “reducing a clock rate of the DSL modem in response to detecting the loss of power when the power switch status is in the on state,” as recited in claim 49. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, 49, and 50 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) (2010). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation