Ex Parte Huff

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2005

09915743 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GARY S. HUFF
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, OWENS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 21, 22 and 30-140, which are all
of the claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a method and system for establishing a link between network
devices. Claim 1, which claims the method, is illustrative:
1. A method for establishing a link between network devices comprising the steps of:
a first network device transmitting a first message advertising a first set of capabilities to
a second network device;
the first network device negotiating with the second network device to determine a first
link speed based upon the first set of capabilities;
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
2
the first network device attempting to establish a link at the first link speed with the
second network device;
the first network device failing to establish a link at the first link speed with the second
network device;
the first network device downgrading the first set of capabilities to a second set of
capabilities, wherein the second set of capabilities does not include the first link speed;
the first network device transmitting a second message advertising the second set of
capabilities to the second network device;
the first network device negotiating with the second network device to determine a
second link speed that is less than the first link speed;
the first network device and the second network device establishing a link at the second
link speed; and
the first network device transmitting data to the second network device via the link at the
second link speed.
THE REFERENCES
Cochennec 4,417,333 Nov. 22, 1983
Crayford 5,432,775 Jul. 11, 1995
Mills 5,991,303 Nov. 23, 1999
Wakeley et al. (Wakeley) 6,198,727 Mar. 6, 2001
Feuerstraeter et al. 6,285,659 Sep. 4, 2001
(Feuerstraeter) (filed Sep. 10, 1997)
IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3, 21, 22, 30-33,
38-41, 63-66, 70-74, 81-84, 87, 88, 90, 94, 96-99, 104-108, 129, 131, 135 and 137 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec; claims 2, 34, 35, 43, 44, 46, 67, 68, 76, 77, 79, 85, 86, 91,
92, 100, 101, 109, 110, 112, 130 and 136 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Mills;
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
3
claims 4 and 5 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Wakeley; claims 36, 37, 69, 102
and 103 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and IEEE 802.3u-1995; claims 42, 75, 89
and 95 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Crayford; claims 45, 47, 78, 80, 93, 111
and 113 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, Mills and Crayford; claims 48-51, 54, 55,
57, 61, 114-117, 120, 121, 123, 127, 132, 134, 138 and 140 over Feuerstraeter in view of
Cochennec and IEEE 802.3u-1995; claims 52, 53, 58, 59, 118, 119, 124, 125, 133 and 139
over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Mills; claims 56, 62, 122 and
128 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Crayford; and claims 60
and 126 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995, Mills and Crayford.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellant states that “[c]laims 1-5, 21-22 and 30-140 (all pending claims) may be
grouped for argument with respect to all 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections” (brief, page 4).
Although references in addition to Feuerstraeter and Cochennec are applied to some
independent and dependent claims, the appellant does not argue that the additional limitations
in those claims render those claims separately patentable. Hence, we limit our discussion to
the issue argued by the appellant (which is common to all claims), i.e., whether Feuerstraeter
and Cochennec disclose or would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
attempting and failing to establish a link. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79,
201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390, 1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260
(CCPA 1972); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
1 Similarly, Cochennec discloses that a failure at a high bit rate can be caused by
the absence of the clock, an excessive error rate or a loss of locking (col. 5, lines 18-
22).
4
Feuerstraeter discloses an autonegotiation system and method wherein, at 10 Mbps
using fast link pulses, devices advertise their communicating ability (col. 6, lines 30-33).
Negotiation logic selects the highest rate protocol which the devices are capable of supporting
(col. 9, lines 20-21). After a protocol is selected, the devices may interexchange data (col. 9,
lines 46-48). Error detection logic monitors transmitted and received data for errors which may
be caused by, for example, substandard voltage amplitude, missing carrier signal, such as
clock, or erroneous frame check sequence (col. 8, lines 29-34).1 If the error count exceeds a
threshold value, the devices renegotiate a lower transmission rate protocol (abstract; col. 8,
lines 48-55; col. 9, lines 56-61). Then data may again be exchanged among the devices (col.
9, lines 61-63).
The appellant argues that Feuerstraeter discloses establishing a link and then detecting
errors in the transmitted data, whereas the appellant attempts and fails to establish a link
(brief, pages 5-6). The appellant argues that if a link is established it services a data
communication, whereas if a link is not established it cannot support a data communication
(brief, page 7).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, as the claim language would have been read by
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prior art. See In re Zletz,
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
5
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551, 190 USPQ 461,
463 (CCPA 1976); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Limitations, however, are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1405, 162 USPQ 541, 551 (CCPA 1969).
The appellant’s specification discloses (page 4, lines 10-16):
A first device communicates a set of capabilities to a second device (i.e. a link
partner). If the second device supports this set of capabilities, a connection is
attempted according to this set of capabilities and, if successful, the two link
partners communicate according to this set of capabilities.
However, if the link cannot be established according to this set of
capabilities, the first device downgrades its set of capabilities and communicates
this downgraded set of capabilities to the second device.
The specification does not specify what is meant by “a connection is attempted”.
Because the set of capabilities is supported by both devices, it reasonably appears that “a
connection is attempted” means that the devices attempt to communicate at that set of
capabilities. If that attempt fails, then the devices downgrade the set of capabilities. Hence,
the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of “failing to establish a link”
and comparable terms in the appellant’s claims includes failing to obtain adequate
communication at a set of capabilities. That interpretation is consistent not only with the
appellant’s specification, but also with the prior art (Feuerstraeter, col. 6, line 30 - col. 7, line 5;
col. 8, lines 24-55; col. 9, lines 40-63).
The appellant’s specification does not specify why the attempt to communicate fails at
the higher set of capabilities. Because the higher set of capabilities is supported by both
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
6
devices, it reasonably appears that the failure can be due to an unacceptably high error rate
during communication at that set of capabilities as in Feuerstraeter’s system. Hence, we are
not convinced of reversible error in the examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3, 21, 22, 30-33, 38-41, 63-66, 70-74,
81-84, 87, 88, 90, 94, 96-99, 104-108, 129, 131, 135 and 137 over Feuerstraeter in view of
Cochennec, claims 2, 34, 35, 43, 44, 46, 67, 68, 76, 77, 79, 85, 86, 91, 92, 100, 101, 109, 110,
112, 130 and 136 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Mills, claims 4 and 5 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Wakeley, claims 36, 37, 69, 102 and 103 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and IEEE 802.3u-1995, claims 42, 75, 89 and 95 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and Crayford, claims 45, 47, 78, 80, 93, 111 and 113 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, Mills and Crayford, claims 48-51, 54, 55, 57, 61, 114-117,
120, 121, 123, 127, 132, 134, 138 and 140 over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec and
IEEE 802.3u-1995, claims 52, 53, 58, 59, 118, 119, 124, 125, 133 and 139 over Feuerstraeter
in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Mills, claims 56, 62, 122 and 128 over
Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and Crayford, and claims 60 and 126
over Feuerstraeter in view of Cochennec, IEEE 802.3u-1995, Mills and Crayford, are affirmed.
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective September 13, 2003; 69 Fed Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat., Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Terry J. Owens ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Stuart S. Levy )
Administrative Patent Judge )

TJO/cam
Appeal No. 2004-0959
Application 09/915,743
8
Bruce E. Garlick
P. O. Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716-0727