Ex Parte Brown

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2010

10286233 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2010)

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.
10/286,233 10/30/2002 Tammy S. Brown 020366-087020US 3548
84190 7590 10/27/2010
Qwest Communications International Inc.
1801 California St., #900
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
DIVECHA, KAMAL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TAMMY S. BROWN
____________________

Appeal 2009-008337
Application 10/286,233
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008337
Application 10/286,233

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24. Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 20 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of planning a network architecture,
comprising:
receiving at a host computer system a request from a user
computer to initiate a network architecture planning process,
wherein the network architecture planning process relates to a
modification to a portion of the public switched telephone
network;
in response to the request, transmitting an electronic file
comprising a first display screen to the user computer, wherein
the first display screen comprises a question relating to a
parameter of the network architecture;
receiving at the host computer system a first response to
the question;
transmitting at least a second electronic file comprising a
second display screen to the user computer, wherein the second
display screen comprises context-sensitive content based on at
least one previous response;
receiving at the host computer system at least a second
response to the at least a second display screen;
at the host computer, determining at least a first action
based on the first response and the at least a second response,
wherein the at least a first action comprises adding at least one
configuration item to a list of configuration items, wherein the
configuration item comprises an ordering unit of a model within
the network architecture, and wherein the list of configuration
items comprise at least a portion of a network architecture plan;
and
Appeal 2009-008337
Application 10/286,233

3
transmitting information relating to the at least a first
action for display at the user computer.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Pub. No.
2002/0161903 A1 issued to Besaw (“Besaw”) and U.S. Patent No.
5,974,127 issued to Wernli et al. (“Wernli”).
Appellant’s Contentions
At pages 8-13 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Besaw
and Wernli because the combination of Besaw and Wernli fails to teach:
A. “receiving at a host computer system a request from a
user computer to initiate a network architecture planning
process, wherein the network architecture planning process
relates to a modification to a portion of the public switched
telephone network”;
B. “in response to the request, transmitting an electronic
file comprising a first display screen to the user computer,
wherein the first display screen comprises a question relating to
a parameter of the network architecture; [and] receiving at the
host computer system a first response to the question”;
C. “transmitting at least a second electronic file
comprising a second display screen to the user computer,
wherein the second display screen comprises context-sensitive
content based on at least one previous response”; and
Appeal 2009-008337
Application 10/286,233

4
D. “determining at least a first action based on the first
response and the at least a second response.”
Also, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because:
E. there is not a proper motivation to combine Besaw and
Wernli.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and
21-24 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the
claim limitations at issue?
Did the Examiner err because there is not a proper motivation to
combine the references?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. 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 Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
We note that Appellant in the Reply Brief makes much of the
Examiner’s citation of paragraph [49] of Appellant’s Specification.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred because Figure 3 described
in paragraph [49] is not directed to a network architecture planning process
as claimed, but rather to creation of a network planning tool. Appellant
Appeal 2009-008337
Application 10/286,233

5
points out that Figure 4, not Figure 3, is directed to the network architecture
planning process.
However, Appellant fails to point out that the portion of the
Specification which describes Figure 4, namely paragraph [61], states
explicitly, “[t]he file may include any of the previously-discusses [sic] object
types.” Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner was correct to cite
paragraph [49] which sets forth the “previously-discusses [sic] object types.”

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12,
14-19, and 21-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-19, and 21-24
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

Qwest Communications International Inc.
1801 California St., #900
Denver, CO 80202