Ex Parte DelRegno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2013

10859463 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICK DELREGNO, SCOTT R. KOTRLA,
DAVID E. MCDYSAN, MICHAEL U. BENCHECK,
MATTHEW W. TURLINGTON, ROSS S. HARDIN,
RICHARD C. SCHELL, HOWARD CHIU,
and WILLIAM DRAKE

____________

Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-22, 24-26, 28-36, 38-43, and 45-58. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to detecting and reporting an
error in communications with customer premise equipment. A preferred
embodiment comprises monitoring the communications link between an
access device and customer premise equipment located on customer
premises. If a communications link fails, or some other condition occurs, an
error signal is transmitted to the access network to notify downstream
network elements of the error condition. The access device is
communicatively coupled to a demarcation device via an Ethernet link. If a
loss of link occurs on the Ethernet link, an error signal, such as an alarm
indicator signal, is transmitted through the network. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An access device comprising:

a first port configured for communicatively coupling to a
demarcation device via an Ethernet link;

a second port configured for communicatively coupling
to a network device via a communications link; and

a processing unit configured to monitor the first port and
to generate an alarm signal on the second port when the
Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463

3
processing unit detects that electrical connectivity has been lost
due to a loss of the Ethernet link.

REFERENCES and THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-22, 24-26, 28-36, 38-43,
and 45-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nelson (US Pub.
2003/0043753 A1) in view of Izundu (US Pub. 2004/0165533 A1).

ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Nelson in view of Izundu teaches the limitation of “the
processing unit detects that electrical connectivity has been lost due to a loss
of the Ethernet link” as recited in claim 1 and the limitation of “determining
whether or not the error condition has been removed” as recited in claim 17.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 26, 36, and 43 require not
only that an error condition has occurred or that electrical connectivity has
been lost, but rather, that there is an actual “loss of a link,” and in claims 1
and 8, more specifically the loss of the Ethernet link (App. Br. 12).
Appellants assert that while Nelson teaches the loss of signal, that does not
suggest loss of link or Ethernet link (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue that
Izundu’s teaching of an Ethernet link does not remedy Nelson’s deficiency.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Nelson teaches a processing unit configured to monitor the
first port (¶ [0068] describing continuous performance monitoring of CPE
and telephone network) and to generate an alarm signal on the second port
Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463

4
when the processing unit detects that electrical connectivity has been lost
due to a loss of the link (¶ [0036] describing Alarm Indication Signals and
¶ [0031] indication of Loss of Signal). We note Nelson teaches the
occurrence of an event, such as Alarm Indication Signals, relates to “the
point of origin of problems detected on the path” (¶ [0034]) (emphasis
added). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, the loss of signal alarm
could be due to loss of link (i.e., path).
The Examiner relied on Izundu for the explicit teaching of an access
monitoring device connected to a demarcation device via an Ethernet link
(Ans. 3; ¶ [0028]).
Thus, the combination of Nelson and Izundu teaches the disputed
limitation of “the processing unit detects that electrical connectivity has been
lost due to a loss of the Ethernet link” as recited in claim 1. Appellants raise
similar arguments with respect to claim 52 (App. Br. 13), which we affirm
for the same reasons.
Appellants separately argue that Nelson does not teach the limitation
of “determining whether or not the error condition has been removed” as
recited in claim 17 (App. Br. 13). The Examiner relied on Table 2, ¶ [0139]
of Nelson for the teaching of this limitation. Appellants argue that Nelson’s
teaching of “no errors are present” at Event Level 0 in Table 2 does not
disclose any determination that an error condition has been removed (App.
Br. 13).
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9), that Nelson
discloses determining that an error condition has been removed (i.e.,
continuous performance monitoring (¶ [0068]) and error monitoring level 0-
7, with no errors being present on event level 0 in Table 2 (¶ [0139])).
Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463

5
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 9) that Nelson
discloses constant monitoring and determination of the network events, both
newly occurring and previously observed errors which were fixed and
removed.
Appellants raise similar arguments with respect to claims 7, 12, 13,
22, 29, 40, 41, 47, and 48 (App. Br. 14). For the same reasons as those
articulated for claim 17, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
7, 12, 13, 22, 29, 40, 41, 47, and 48.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 4-8, 10-22, 24-26, 28-36, 38-43,
and 45-58.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Nelson in
view of Izundu teaches the limitation of “the processing unit detects that
electrical connectivity has been lost due to a loss of the Ethernet link” as
recited in claim 1 and the limitation of “determining whether or not the error
condition has been removed” as recited in claim 17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-22, 24-26, 28-
36, 38-43, and 45-58 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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2011-007820
Application 10/859,463

6
msc