Ex Parte GOH et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2011

09102207 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVE GOH, LEENA SANSGUIRI, PAUL CHOU,
NANDAKUMAR NATARAJAN, JOHN A. DILLEY,
MARCOS FRID, ROBERT H. HYERLE, ARNE LUHRS,
and CHANDRASEKAR VENKATRAMAN
_____________

Appeal 2009-011528
Application 09/102,207
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011528
Application 09/102,207

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellants’ Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Appellants’ Figure 3 and claimed invention are directed to a chip 38
that gathers information about a managed computer 18 without burdening
the host processor and placing overhead on the operating system (Fig. 3;
Spec. 4:10-12). Chip 38 allows the network manager to control and manage
the computer (Spec. 7:20-22). Chip 38 includes a media access controller 42
which allows bi-directional communication with Local Area Network
(LAN) 22 (Spec. 7:23-25).
Appeal 2009-011528
Application 09/102,207

3
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A chip for incorporation within a network device connectable to a
computer network, the network device including a host processor, the chip
comprising:
a media access controller connectable to the computer network, the
media access controller providing the chip with access to the computer
network independent of the host processor;
a host interface connectable to the host processor; and
an embedded processor coupled between the host interface and the
media access controller;
the embedded processor being programmable to function as a
manageability web server, communicate with the host interface and obtain
manageability information about the network device;
the embedded processor further being programmable to send the
manageability information to the media access controller for transmission
over the computer network;
whereby the chip performs network management functions
independent of the host processor.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Han US 5,903,737 May 11, 1999
Cromer US 6,532,497 B1 Mar. 11, 2003
(filed Apr. 14, 1998)
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12-15, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Cromer.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9-11, 18, and 21-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cromer.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cromer in view of Han.
Appeal 2009-011528
Application 09/102,207

4
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in determining that Cromer teaches an
embedded processor which sends manageability information “to the media
access controller for transmission over the computer network” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13), inter alia, that Cromer specifically
teaches logic 400 which sends data to physical layer 304, not to the media
access controller 308 (col. 3, ll. 42-47). Appellants note that the additional
arrow shown in Cromer’s Figure 4, as compared with Figure 3, is solely for
the purpose of communication between the packet logic 400 and the physical
layer 304 (App. Br. 13).
We agree with Appellants’ argument. We do not agree with the
Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 10) that Figure 4’s bidirectional arrow indicates
bidirectional communication between processor/logic 400 over the network
through the media access controller 308 (see also Ans. 4). Cromer teaches
that “the physical layer 304 . . . conditions analog signals to go out to the
network” and that the media access controller MAC 308 is involved in
energizing the client system 104 through a wake up command (col. 3, ll. 24-
36 (emphasis added)). While this is with respect to Cromer’s Figure 3, no
additional information is stated with respect to Figure 4’s arrow that
connects physical layer 304 and the MAC 308. The only reference in
Cromer’s description to Figure 4 is that the processor/logic 400 sends
network packets to the network using the physical layer 304 (col. 3, ll. 42-
47). Thus, the only logical inference is that the processor/logic 400 uses
Appeal 2009-011528
Application 09/102,207

5
physical layer 304 to send packages directly to the network. It would not be
logically inferred that processor/logic 400 would send packages to the
network through MAC 308, just because there is a bidirectional arrow
between physical layer 304 and MAC 308.
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
for similar reasons the rejections of independent claims 13 and 23, as well as
the rejections of dependent claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-15, and 18-22, and 24-30.
We will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4, 16,
and 17 as the additional Han reference either alone or in combination, does
not cure the above-cited deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in determining that Cromer teaches an embedded
processor which sends manageability information “to the media access
controller for transmission over the computer network.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc