Ex Parte Fiut et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 2008

10087046 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte BRIAN D. FIUT and RODNEY E. NEMITZ
________________

Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: December 9, 2008
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-27. Claim 4 has been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method and system for monitoring
measurement data in a wireless communication network from a remote
location. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:

Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

1. A method for monitoring a basestation in a wireless
communication network from a location remote to said
basestation, said method comprising:
acquiring at a monitoring probe arranged local to a
basestation measurement data for at least one network link
parameter of said basestation, measurement data for at least
one wireless link parameter of said basestation, and
measurement data for at least one operational parameter of
said basestation;
formatting said measurement data for said at least one
network link parameter, said measurement data for said at
least one wireless link parameter, and said measurement data
for said at least one operational parameter into a uniform
format; and
communicating, in said uniform format, said
measurement data for said at least one network link
parameter, said measurement data for said at least one
wireless link parameter, and said measurement data for said
at least one operational parameter from said monitoring
probe to a processor-based device arranged remote from said
basestation.

2
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

REFERENCES

Mailandt US 4,823,280 Apr. 18, 1989

Breed US 5,489,914 Feb. 6, 1996

Johnson US 5,907,800 May 25, 1999

Menon US 2001/0001268 A1 May 17, 2001

Barshefsky US 6,385,609 May 7, 2002
(filed Apr. 23, 1999)

Wiczer US 2002/0147936 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
(filed Apr. 9, 2001)

Anvekar US 2005/0233759 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
(filed Sep. 17, 2001)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 12, 13, 18, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson.
The Examiner rejected claims 5-7, 9, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson in further view of
Breed.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson in further view of
Mailandt.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson in further
view of Barshefsky.
3
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson in further
view of Wiczer.
The Examiner rejected claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson in further view of
Anvekar.

ISSUES
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
Claims 1-3
Appellants contend on pages 7-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-5
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson is in
error. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group
comprising claims 1-3 since Appellants did not separately argue claims 2
and 3 with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that
the references do not teach communicating data in a uniform format. App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that the references do not teach
formatting measurement data for at least one network link parameter,
measurement data for at least one wireless link parameter, and measurement
data for at least one operational parameter. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4-5.
Thus, with respect to claims 1-3, Appellants’ contentions present us
with two issues: have the Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
Menon and Johnson teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format; and
(2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter?
4
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Claims 12, 13, and 18
Appellants’ arguments on page 11 of the Appeal Brief identify similar
limitations in independent claim 12, as discussed above with respect to claim
1. Further, Appellants’ arguments group claims 13 and 18 with claim 12.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12, 13, and 18 present us with the same issues as claim 1.
Claims 21 and 22
Appellants’ arguments on page 12 of the Appeal Brief identify similar
limitations in independent claim 21, as discussed above with respect to claim
1. Further, Appellants’ arguments group claim 22 with claim 21. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 22 present us with the same issues as claim 1.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
and Breed.
Appellants argue on pages 13-14 of the Appeal Brief and pages 7-8 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 9, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson
and Breed is in error. Appellants reason that the claims are allowable based
on their dependency from claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7-8.
Further, Appellants argue that “the Final Office Action has not provided
sufficient motivation to combine Breed with Menon and Johnson, nor does
any such motivation exist.” Id.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1 and 12. Further, Appellants’ contentions present us
5
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

with the issue of whether the Examiner has provided a valid rationale for the
reason to combine the references.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson and
Mailandt.
Appellants argue on pages 14-15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8-9 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson and
Mallandt is in error. Appellants reason that the claims are allowable based
on their dependency from claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8-9.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1 and 12.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
and Barshefsky.
Appellants argue on pages 15-16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 9-10
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-11 and 16-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of
Johnson and Barshefsky is in error. Appellants reason that the claims are
allowable based on their dependency from claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 15-16;
Reply Br. 9-10.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1 and 12.

6
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
and Wiczer.
Appellants argue on pages 16-17 of the Appeal Brief and page 10 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-15 and 23-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of
Johnson and Wiczer is in error. Appellants reason that the claims are
allowable based on their dependency from claims 12 and 21. App. Br. 16-
17; Reply Br. 10.
Thus, the Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 12 and 21.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
and Anvekar.
Appellants argue on page 17 of the Appeal Brief and page 11 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Menon in view of Johnson and Anvekar is
in error. Appellants reason that the claims are allowable based on their
dependency from claim 21. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 11.
Thus, the Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claim 21.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Menon
1. Menon teaches a telecommunication network comprising “a base
station which provides wireless access for CPRUs [Customer
7
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Premise Radio Units] to one or more public packet data networks
and/or public switched circuit networks.” Menon, Abstract.
2. “Each CPRU, WARP [Wireless Adjunct internet Platform] and
base station…in wireless access systems…supports self-
supervision functionality to detect failures due to equipment
processing, communications, quality of service and environment
conditions.” Menon, ¶ [0226].
3. “The respective self-supervision functionality further supports
providing failure information to the system’s OMC [Operation and
Maintenance Center], via hardware status failure reports.” Menon,
¶ [0226].
4. “[W]henever a base station of the wireless access system …is
operational, it performs a measurement collection functionality.”
Menon, ¶ [0227].
5. “[T]he measurement collection functionality includes, but is not
limited to, a determination of the uplink radio quality and signal
strength on each base station for all used, i.e., busy, over-the-air
channels, the signal strength on idle, i.e., not used, over-the-air
channels, the success rate of over-the-air interface procedures, and
the availability and usage of the base stations’ over-the-air
resources.” Menon, ¶ [0227].
6. “The base stations’ measured, and/or collected values, or results,
are reported to the wireless access system.” Menon, ¶ [0228].
Johnson
7. Johnson teaches a system for preventing subscriber termination by
collecting information from a variety of external data sources
8
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

which can include “a source of information relating to a
competitor’s rate plans and demographic information about
customers; a cellular network…which may be a source of system
status information, including improper call termination
information; a billing system, which may be a source of detailed
information relating to calls; a customer service function, which
may be a source of customer profile information and a recipient of
information generated by the system; and a marketing function,
which may be a source of rate plan information as well as a
recipient of information generated by the system.” Johnson, col. 7,
ll. 1-16.
8. “The interface transforms the data from the form in which it is
received from external data sources into the form subsequently
used by the system.” Johnson, col. 7, ll. 16-19.
9. “[R]ecords for both cellular originated and cellular terminated calls
may variously be obtained from the MSC [Mobile Switching
Center] directly, from electronic data sources and from a roamer
tape [i.e., a magnetic tape containing multiple CDRs (Call Detail
Records)] through [the] interface.” Johnson, col. 7, ll. 28-31, and
Fig. 2.
10. The “interface translates a CDR record into a format
understandable to the system - the CCF [Common Communication
Format] format.” Johnson, col. 7, ll. 31-34, and Fig. 2.
11. After the record is translated into a common format, it is passed to
the analysis section. Johnson, col. 7, ll. 31-34, and Fig. 2.

9
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused
with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.’” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (emphasis in original) (citing Intervet Am., Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc.,
887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive
material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the
descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-
84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“[W]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the
printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of
patentability.” Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has recently stated
that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
10
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.

Id. at 1740. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson.
Claims 1-3
Claims 1-3 were argued as a group with claim 1 as representative.
App. Br. 7-11.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that Menon and Johnson
teach communicating data in a uniform format. App. Br. 8. Appellants
contend the data formatting occurs “after the data has been communicated”
rather than prior to the data being communicated. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner has found the Menon reference teaches communicating
data from a monitoring probe to a processor-based device arranged remote
from the base station. Ans. 9. In addition, the Examiner has found that
Johnson teaches communicating the data after it is translated into a uniform
format. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Neither the Appellants nor the
Examiner dispute the fact that Menon teaches communicating “the base
stations’ measured, and/or collected values, or results…to the wireless
access system” and we find the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding.
11
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

FF 6. Therefore, the issue is solely over whether Johnson teaches
communicating the data in a uniform format.
Johnson teaches a system for preventing subscriber termination by
collecting information from a variety of external data sources. FF 7. “The
interface transforms the data from the form in which it is received from
external data sources into the form subsequently used by the system.” FF 8.
For example, Johnson teaches receiving information from a roamer tape and
electronic data sources at the switch interface. FF 9. The switch interface
takes this information and converts it into a format understandable to the
system; the CCF [Common Communication Format] format. FF 10. Once
this record is created, it is passed (i.e., communicated) to the analysis
section. FF 11. Therefore, the information is communicated after it is
converted into a common format. As a result, the combination of Menon
with Johnson teaches communicating, in a uniform format, data to a
processor-based device arranged remote from the base station. Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellants additionally argue neither Menon nor Johnson teach the
types of data indicated in claim 1, i.e., at least one network link parameter, at
least one wireless link parameter, and at least one operational parameter.
App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that Johnson only teaches converting one type
of data into a single format and not disparate types of records into a uniform
format. Id.
These arguments have not persuaded us of error. Claim 1 recites
“formatting said measurement data for said at least one network link
parameter, said measurement data for said at least one wireless link
12
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

parameter, and said measurement data for said at least one operational
parameter into a uniform format; and communicating, in said uniform
format, said measurement data for said at least one network link parameter,
said measurement data for said at least one wireless link parameter, and said
measurement data for said at least one operational parameter from said
monitoring probe to a processor-based device arranged remote from said
basestation.” Thus the scope of the claims includes two pieces of data
formatted into a uniform format and three pieces of data are transmitted. We
consider the titles given to the data, such as “network link parameter,”
“wireless link parameter,” and “operational parameter” to be non-functional
descriptive material. Appellants’ Specification provides no specific
definition of the terms “network link parameters,”, “wireless link
parameters,” or “operational parameters.” We find no functional
relationship to the types of data being monitored and the method claimed.
As such, we consider the limitations identifying the types of data to be
directed to non-functional descriptive material, and as such not to
differentiate the claim from the prior art. “[W]here the printed matter is not
functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish
the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Ngai, 367 F.3d at
1339 (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The Examiner has found that Johnson teaches formatting different
types of measurement data (CIBER, CDR, and other formats) into a uniform
format (CCF). Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner. FF 8 and 9. Further,
as the titles of the data are merely non-functional descriptive material, they
do not differentiate the data monitored by Menon’s system.
13
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Even if the data indicated in claim 1 were functionally related to the
method, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner
finds Menon, not Johnson, teaches the types of data collected at the base
station. Ans. 11-12. We agree with the Examiner. As mentioned
previously, Appellants’ Specification does not provide a specific definition
for the claimed parameters. The Specification merely gives examples of
each. Spec. 5: 16-19. As such, we consider the Examiner’s interpretation of
the claimed “network parameter” as dealing with detecting failures due to
equipment communications to be reasonable and supported by the Findings
of FF. FF 2. Similarly, we consider the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed “wireless parameter” as dealing with detecting the uplink radio
quality and signal strength on each base station, and the claimed
“operational parameter” dealing with the detection of environmental
conditions, both taught by Menon, to be reasonable and supported by the
evidence. FF 2, 5. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, or dependent
claims 2 and 3 grouped with claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 3.

Claims 12, 13, and 18
As discussed supra, Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 12
present the same issues as discussed with respect to claim 1. Independent
claim 12 is similar to claim 1 in that it recites communicating data in a
uniform format and that the data represents “a network link parameter,” “a
14
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

wireless link parameter,” and “an operational parameter.” Further,
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the first issue have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Menon and
Johnson teach communicating in a uniform format. Similarly, Appellants’
arguments with respect to the second issue have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred. Applying a similar claim interpretation as discussed above
with respect to claim 1, we find the recitations of “network link parameter,”
“wireless link parameter,” and “operational parameter” in claim 12 are
directed to non-functional descriptive material. As such, these limitations do
not differentiate the claimed invention over the data monitored by Menon’s
system. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13,
and 18 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.

Claims 21 and 22
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22. Appellants’ arguments that the
rejection of these claims is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1 and 12 are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claims 1 and 12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 21 and 22.

15
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson
and Breed.
Claims 5-7 and 9
Claims 5-7 and 9 were argued as a group with claim 5 as
representative. App. Br. 13.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7 and 9. Appellants argue the rejection of
claims 5-7 and 9 is in error for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 13). Appellants additionally argue the Final Office Action
has not provided sufficient motivation, nor does any such motivation exist,
to combine Breed with Menon and Johnson. Id. The Examiner has found
the motivation to combine the references throughout the Breed reference.
Ans. 13-14.
Initially, Appellants’ arguments that the rejection of claims 5-7 and 9
is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 are not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Further,
Appellants’ additional arguments directed to the rejection of claim 5 have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Menon teaches measurement collection includes measurements of
uplink radio quality and signal strength. FF 5. We consider these to be
receiver measurements and transmitter measurements as recited in claim 5.
Thus, as Menon teaches the limitations of the claim, the issue of whether
there is motivation to combine Breed with Menon and Johnson is moot as
Menon itself teaches the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7 and 9.

16
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Claim 19
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claim 19 depends upon claim 12 and
recites limitations similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claim 19 present the same
issues discussed supra with respect to claims 12, 5-7, and 9 (App. Br. 14).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claims 12, 5-7, and 9.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson and
Mailandt.
Claim 8
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1. Appellants’
arguments directed to the rejection of claim 8 present the same issues
discussed with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 14-15). Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 1.

Claim 20
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. Claim 20 depends upon claim 12.
Appellants’ arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
claim 12 (App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 20 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 12.

17
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson and
Barshefsky.
Claims 10 and 11
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11. Claims 10 and 11 ultimately
depend upon claim 1. Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of
claims 10 and 11 present the same issues discussed with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10
and 11 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

Claims 16 and 17
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17. Claims 16 and 17 ultimately
depend upon claim 12. Appellants’ arguments present the same issues
discussed with respect to claim 12 (App. Br. 16). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 12.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson and
Wiczer.
Claims 14 and 15
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15. Claims 14 and 15 ultimately
depend upon claim 12. Appellants’ arguments present the same issues
discussed with respect to claim 12 (App. Br. 16). Therefore, we sustain the
18
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15 for the reasons discussed supra
with respect to claim 12.

Claims 23 and 24
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-24. Claims 23-24 ultimately depend upon
claim 21. Appellants’ arguments present the same issues discussed with
respect to claim 21 (App. Br. 16-17). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23-24 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 21.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Menon in view of Johnson and
Anvekar.
Claims 25-27
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-27. Claims 25-27 depend from
independent claims 1, 12, and 21, respectively. Appellants’ arguments
present the same issues discussed with respect to these independent claims
(App. Br. 17). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-
27 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 21.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon
and Johnson teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format; and (2)
formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
19
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon,
Johnson, and Breed teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format; and
(2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon,
Johnson, and Mailandt teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format;
and (2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon,
Johnson, and Barshefsky teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format;
and (2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon,
Johnson, and Wiczer teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format;
and (2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Menon,
Johnson, and Anvekar teach: (1) communicating data in a uniform format;
and (2) formatting a network link parameter, wireless link parameter, and
operational parameter.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-27 are 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).

20
Appeal 2007-3631
Application 10/087,046

AFFIRMED

Eld

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT, DL429
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 7599
LOVELAND, CO 80537-0599

21