Ex Parte Fang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 11, 2011

09962861 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 11, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JAMES W. FANG
_____________

Appeal 2009-011105
Application 09/962,861
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 27.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for a centralized intelligent
network which permits a central control to perform functions associated with
Appeal 2009-011105
Application 09/962,861
2

the network devices. See Specification 3-4. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for a centralized intelligence network, comprising:
connecting a user device to a control gateway via a network, the
control gateway being configured to access at least one control
module, the control module being configured to perform at least
one operation associated with the user device;
performing, by the control module, the operation; and
sending, by the control gateway to the user device, information
based at least in part on the performed operation.

REFERENCE
Hite US 7,213,061 B1 May 1, 2007

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 27, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Hite. Answer 3-61.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 14 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of Hite is in error. These arguments
present us with the following issues:

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 4, 2009.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 18,
2008.
Appeal 2009-011105
Application 09/962,861
3

a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hite teaches performing at
least one operation associated with the user device within the
master controller?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that the master controller performs
the operations of a user device as is recited in the claimed control
module?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Hite teaches performing at
least one operation associated with the user device within the master
controller. 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 conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
Appellant argues that the Hite master controller fails to act according
to a received command but merely forwards the command to the appropriate
device. Brief 12. Thus, Appellant argues that the Hite master controller
does not teach the claimed feature of performing at least one operation
associated with the user device. Brief 12. The Examiner finds that the Hite
master controller performs operations associated with the user device and
thus meets the claimed control gateway to access a control module to
perform an operation associated with the user device. Answer 6. The
Examiner provides two examples of operations associated with the Hite
device, i.e., polling devices and turning off/on of the output channels of the
device. Answer 6. We concur with these findings by the Examiner as these
Appeal 2009-011105
Application 09/962,861
4

are functions “associated” with the user device. Thus, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Hite teaches performing
at least one operation associated with the user device within the master
controller.
Further, Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant argues that the
Hite master controller merely controls operations and fails to perform
operations of the user device. Brief 13. As the Examiner identifies on page
7 of the Answer, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, as claim 1 recites performing operations “associated with” not “of” the
user device. Appellant has not separately argued the other independent
claims 10, 20, and 22 nor has Appellant separately argued any dependent
claim. See Brief 13-14. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 27 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

tj