Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

10767604 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/767,604 01/28/2004 Haixiang Liang 3875.0060001 5206
26111 7590 10/29/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CHEN, QING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAIXIAN LIANG, ILYA STOMAKHIN,
MARK GONIKBERG, and YURY GONIKBER
____________

Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9-13 and 19-46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to operational analysis of real-
time communication systems and devices. Real-time information (e.g.,
samples, data, and commands) of a communication device is recorded over a
period of time. A playback device or module executes a model of the real-
time communication device in a non-real-time environment according to the
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

2

recorded information that is equivalent to what occurred in the original
device. Any problems that occurred in real-time may be repeated in non-
real-time playback. See generally Spec., ¶¶ 1, 11.
Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A modem device comprising:
a first input that operates to receive information from a first device
that is utilizing the modem device to communicate with a second device
through a communication network;
a second input that operates to receive information from the second
device through the communication network; and
a recording module processor communicatively coupled to the first
input and the second input that operates to fully record input information
arriving at one or both of the first input and the second input during real-
time operation of the modem device for subsequent non-real-time analysis.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 9-13 and 39-41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Abdelilah (U.S. 6,823,004 B1, issued Nov.
24, 2004, filed Oct. 29, 1999). Ans. 3-8.
1

2. The Examiner rejected claims 19-38, 42-44, and 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abdelilah and Kaler (U.S.
6,467,052 B1, issued Oct. 15, 2002). Ans. 8-30.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abdelilah, Kaler, and Read (U.S. 5,353,243 B1, issued
Oct. 4, 1994). Ans. 30-31.

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
15, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 13, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 10, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

3

ISSUES
(1) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “a recording module processor
communicatively coupled to the first input and the second input that operates
to fully record input information arriving at one or both of the first input and
the second input during real-time operation of the modem device for
subsequent non-real-time analysis”?
(2) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “a command input that receives modem
control commands from the first device, and wherein the recording module
processor further causes modem control commands arriving at the command
input during real-time operation of the modem device to be fully recorded
for subsequent non-real-time analysis”?
(3) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “the first device is a personal computer, and
wherein the recording module processor operates to cause the input
information arriving at the first input from the personal computer and
arriving at the second input from the second device through the
communication network, during real-time operation of the modem device, to
be fully recorded on a memory device of the personal computer”?
(4) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “the recording module processor operates to
cause input information arriving at the first input from the first device and
arriving at the second input from the second device through the
communication network to be communicated to a networked computer
communicatively coupled to the modem device over the communication
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

4

network and fully recorded on a memory device of the networked
computer”?
(5) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 40 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “the recording module processor is
integrated into an integrated circuit of the modem device”?
(6) Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 41 by
finding that Abdelilah disclosed “the recording module processor operates to
cause the input information arriving at the first input and the second input
during real-time operation of the modem device to be fully recorded in
exactly the same sequence as the input information is received at the modem
device”?
(7) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 by
finding that Abdelilah and Kaler collectively would have taught or suggested
“a playback module communicatively coupled to the memory, the playback
module comprising a model of the modem that the playback module
executes according to the input information in the memory”?
(8) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 by
finding that Abdelilah and Kaler collectively would have taught or suggested
“the model of the modem comprises a bit-exact software model of the
modem that, when executed, produces results that are the same as an original
modem that the bit-exact software model is modeling”?
(9) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35 by
finding that Abdelilah and Kaler collectively would have taught or suggested
“the model of the modem comprises a software component that is the same
as a software component of the modem”?
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

5

(10) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 36 by
finding that Abdelilah and Kaler collectively would have taught or suggested
“the model of the modem comprises a hardware component that is the same
as a hardware component of the modem”?
(11) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45 by
finding that Abdelilah, Kaler, and Read collectively would have taught or
suggested “the model of the modem is a hardware model that comprises an
actual hardware component that is the same as a hardware component of the
modem being modeled”?

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 9 which
recites, in pertinent part, “a recording module processor communicatively
coupled to the first input and the second input that operates to fully record
input information arriving at one or both of the first input and the second
input during real-time operation of the modem device for subsequent non-
real-time analysis.” The term at issue is italicized.
The Examiner relies on Abdelilah to meet the disputed limitation.
Ans. 4-5, 32-36. The Examiner finds there is no description in the
Specification of “fully record” that requires that “all of the information
arriving at one or both of the first input and the second input is recorded.”
Ans. 33. Second, the Examiner finds the claim language itself does not
dictate that “all information” be recorded. Id. Concerning recording one or
both of the first and second inputs, the Examiner finds Abdelilah discloses a
primary path 315, i.e., first input, and a secondary path both available to be
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

6

recorded as the DSP memory 345. Ans. 4-5 (citing Abdelilah, col. 9, l. 66
through col. 10, l. 49). The Examiner provides the following example:
Furthermore, as performance information may be
collected on a real-time basis during a connection, pertinent
data may be preserved which might otherwise be lost as a result
of an event causing diagnostic data in the DSP memory 345 to
be overwritten (for example, during retrains). The performance
data may be recorded while the user of the client modem 310 is
actively connected to a remote server modem in a normal
manner such as through a service provider end user application
(e.g. AOL, IGN Dialer and Windows Dial-up Networking)
executing on the host system 300. Performance data may be
obtained throughout the active connection operations including
both the startup phases and during data communication as well
as the disconnect procedures.

Id. (quoting Abdelilah, col 10, ll. 30-44). The Examiner further finds“all
data related to the performance of the modem must be recorded,” as would
be recognized by one of ordinary skill from Abdelilah’s monitoring of the
performance of the modem. Ans. 35.
Appellants argue Abdelilah records only select data related to
diagnostics, performance and internal states. App. Br. 8. The Specification
is not limiting and simply describes examples of information that may be
recorded. Reply Br. 5. The examples described in the Specification are not
recited in claim 9. Id. Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of “fully record” because it ignores “fully.” Reply Br. 6.
Citing to a dictionary definition, Appellants contend “fully” means
“completely.” Reply Br. 7. While not disputing that Abdelilah discloses
recording “data, samples and commands of a modem,” Appellants note that
the disputed limitation of claim 9 differs. Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants
conclude by alleging one of ordinary skill would understand Abdelilah’s
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

7

partial recording to be different from the claimed “fully record” limitation,
which Appellants contend means “recording all input information.” Reply
Br. 9-11.
We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fully record”
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner looked to the Specification
in finding that “fully record” does not require the recording of all
information. The Examiner also looked at the claim language at issue to
support the finding. We agree with the Examiner that, between the
Specification and the claim language, “fully record” is met by recording
modem performance data.
Appellants represent the Examiner’s position equating the “input
information arriving at one or both of the first input and the second input
during real-time operation of the modem device” with the “samples, data,
and commands and the like” erroneously omits the claimed “fully” record
limitation. Reply Br. 7 (Table). Appellants do not address the Examiner’s
position, that “input information” from two input devices is recorded in
Abdelilah via primary and secondary input paths. Ans. 33-34. The
Examiner’s finding is reasonable.
Data, samples, and commands are the only inputs described or shown
in the Specification. Spec. ¶ 16, 24, 28-29, 31, 33, and 36-37. We are not
persuaded they are just examples of inputs when the Specification does not
suggest or show any other possible input. Spec., Fig. 1. Further, there is
nothing in the Specification or the claim language that would preclude “fully
record” from meaning “fully” recording any of the parameters, as contrasted
with all parameters, identified in the Specification, data, samples, or
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

8

commands. The Examiner cites to paragraph 11 of the Specification. Ans.
33. Additionally, paragraph 21 describes the recording platform 103,
without any description whatsoever of what “fully record” means. Indeed,
“fully record” appears only once in the Specification, paragraph 11 as cited
by the Examiner. “Fully record” does not appear at all in the claims as
originally filed. The addition of “fully record” to the claims as they are now
presented is a thin reed which does not support Appellants’ claim of
patentable subject matter over the disclosure of Abdelilah.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s interpretation and the
rejection of claim 9 is sustained. Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and is not
separately argued. The rejection of claim 13 is sustained for the same
reasons already stated.

Rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and additionally recites “a command
input that receives modem control commands from the first device, and
wherein the recording module processor further causes modem control
commands arriving at the command input during real-time operation of the
modem device to be fully recorded for subsequent non-real-time analysis.”
The Examiner finds Abdelilah discloses recording performance
information including “call setup return codes (CSR CODE) such as those
available on Microsoft Corporation's AT code #UD (UniModem diagnostic
command specification) ....” Ans. 5 (citing Abdelilah, col. 9, ll. 33-37). The
Examiner further finds the command inputs are recorded via the primary
path of Abdelilah. Ans. 37.
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

9

Appellants respond that the control commands of Abdelilah do not
arrive “at the command input” and are not “fully recorded.” App. Br. 13-
14. Appellants also urge us to consider that Abdelilah discloses that “data
transmitted on primary path 315 to modem 310 is the data to be transmitted
over network 320, which is different than modem control commands. Reply
Br. 13.
We previously addressed the interpretation of “fully recorded” and
Appellants do not sufficiently argue anything with respect to claim 10 that
dictates any different result.
2
Nor do Appellants explain why Abdelilah
does not disclose the control commands arriving at the command input. As
per Abdelilah, the primary and secondary paths interconnect, i.e., arrive at,
the host and with the DSP and DSP memory, i.e., recording module.
Abdelilah, Fig. 3. Nor are we persuaded that the primary path 315, which
the Examiner finds as a command input, merely transmits data. Data could
include commands and the Appellants do not direct us to an explicit
definition in the Specification for “command input.” The use of different
words alone does not distinguish over Abdelilah.
The rejection of claim 10 is therefore sustained.

Rejection of Claims 11 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and includes the additional limitation
“the first device is a personal computer, and wherein the recording module
processor operates to cause the input information arriving at the first input

2
Several arguments for patentability on the same basis are made with
respect to other claims. Absent reason to do so, those contentions will not
be further addressed unless stated otherwise.
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

10

from the personal computer and arriving at the second input from the second
device through the communication network, during real-time operation of
the modem device, to be fully recorded on a memory device of the personal
computer.” (Emphasis added).
The Examiner notes “Abdelilah's invention records the
communication operations of the modem arriving from the host system
(personal computer) and the remote device (second device) on the DSP
memory of the modem which is contained within the host system.” Ans. 39-
40.
Among other arguments, Appellants note that the recording of
Abdelilah occurs in the modem, and not on a memory device of a personal
computer. App. Br. 14-15. Appellants point to Abdelilah Figure 3 as
showing the DSP memory is part of the modem. Id.
We agree with Appellants. The host system is relied on by the
Examiner as disclosing a personal computer. Ans. 39. The host system, as
Appellants point out, is not part of the DSP or DSP memory.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 11.
3
Claim 39 depends on
claim 11 and contains similar limitations. The rejection of claim 39 is
reversed for the same reasons previously stated.

3
Upon further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine
whether in view of additional prior art teachings or the general knowledge of
one skilled in the art, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
to modify Abdelilah to include recording on a memory device of a personal
computer.
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

11

Rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and includes the additional limitation
“the recording module processor operates to cause input information arriving
at the first input from the first device and arriving at the second input from
the second device through the communication network to be communicated
to a networked computer communicatively coupled to the modem device
over the communication network and fully recorded on a memory device of
the networked computer.”
The Examiner finds Abdelilah discloses a “networked computer” in
describing a second host at a remote location. Ans. 41-42 (citing Abdelilah,
col. 8, ll. 53-62). The second host is connected through the secondary path
335 to the host. Id. The invention is described as monitoring performance,
and recording information, at the host. Id. The second host is described as
another embodiment of the invention. Id.
Appellants deny Abdelilah contains any “disclosure of a processor
within Abdelilah's modem 310 that causes the information arriving at first
and second inputs of the modem 310 to be fully recorded at a networked
computer's memory device.” App. Br. 16. Appellants also contend the
“fully recorded” limitation of claim 12 is not present in Abdelilah. Reply
Br. 15.
Appellants’ denial of the limitation as disclosed in Abdelilah is not
persuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claim 12 for reasons previously stated.

Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

12

Rejection of Claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 40 depends from claim 9 and includes as an additional
limitation “the recording module processor is integrated into an integrated
circuit of the modem device.”
The Examiner finds the elements 340, 345, 355, and 360 of Figure 3
of Abdelilah meet the limitation. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner specifically
points to the DSP memory as an integrated circuit of the recording module.
Ans. 45-46. DSP is a digital signal processor. Id.
Appellants repeat the “fully record” argument of claim 9. App. Br.
17. Appellants contend the DSP of Abdelilah is neither a processor nor a
“recording module processor.” Reply Br. 17-18.
Appellants’ denials that Abdelilah discloses the disputed elements are
not persuasive. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 40.

Rejection of Claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 41 depends from claim 9 and includes the additional limitation
“the recording module processor operates to cause the input information
arriving at the first input and the second input during real-time operation of
the modem device to be fully recorded in exactly the same sequence as the
input information is received at the modem device.”
The Examiner finds the DSP memory further includes one or more
first-in first-out buffers used to record state transitions made for one or more
of the state machines of the modem. Ans. 8 (citing Abdelilah, col. 8, ll. 15-
20 and 28-33). The Examiner further clarifies: one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

13

art would understand the state transitions would be recorded in the same
sequence as the order of the modem’s state transitions. Ans. 47.
In response to the Examiner’s clarified position, Appellants argue
state transitions are not input information. Reply Br. 18.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has shown no basis in
Abdelilah for concluding that state transitions are input information. Absent
some disclosure in Abdelilah or some finding that a skilled artisan would
equate a state to an input there can be no anticipation.
The rejection of claim 41 is reversed.

Rejection of Claims 19-22, 24-29, 32, 33, 37, 38
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Claim 19 is an independent claim similar to claim 9 discussed above.
Claim 19 includes an additional limitation “a playback module
communicatively coupled to the memory, the playback module comprising a
model of the modem that the playback module executes according to the
input information in the memory.”
The Examiner finds:
Kaler discloses: a playback module communicatively
coupled to a memory, the playback module comprising a model
of an application that the playback module executes according
to input information in the memory (see Figure 14; Column 33:
15-20, “FIG. 14 illustrates various user interface features of an
animated application model in an exemplary embodiment of the
invention. The user interface features are shown generally by
reference number 400. In the UI depicted in FIG. 14, diagrams
are portrayed of the different blocks representing varying levels
of detail of a hierarchical model of the application.”).
(Emphasis added).

Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

14

Ans. 10.
Appellants again argue “fully records” as it appears in claim 19. App.
Br. 19-20. The Appellants further assert Kaler is addressed only in stating it
addresses analyzing performance of a data processing system. App. Br. 20,
Reply Br. 20.
We sustain the rejection of claim 19 for the same reasons discussed in
regard to claim 9. Appellants do not overcome, or respond to, the
Examiner’s reasoning that Kaler teaches or suggests the modelling limitation
in dispute.
Independent claim 27 is argued as patentable with claim 19 and the
rejection of claim 27 is sustained for reasons previously discussed.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and has limitations similar to claim
12 where the rejection was sustained. Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 28, 29, 33, 37,
38, and 43 are not separately argued beyond their dependency from claim 19
or 27. Claim 32 depends from claim 27 and is argued as patentable based on
reasons we have already rejected.
For the reasons previously stated the rejections of claims 20-22, 24-
26, 28-29, 32, 33, 37, 38, and 43 are sustained.

Rejection of Claims 23, 34, 42, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 23 depends from claim 19 and includes the additional limitation
“the model of the modem comprises a bit-exact software model of the
modem that, when executed, produces results that are the same as an original
modem that the bit-exact software model is modeling.” (Emphasis added).
The Examiner finds the Kaler model of a modem comprises a bit-
exact software model of the modem. Ans. 13. When executed results that
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

15

are the same as an original modem, being a “bit-exact software model.” Id.
(citing Kaler, col. 32, ll. 57-62). Kaler discloses that “the animated
application model shows the structure and activity of an application whose
performance is being studied. Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily
comprehend that the animated application model is a “bit-exact” software
model of the application in order to accurately and precisely study its
performance.” Ans. 50. Kaler “has utility in analyzing the performance of
computer hardware.” Id. (citing Kaler, col. 3, ll. 58-65).
Appellants contend Kaler does not teach bit-exact software model.
App. Br. 26, Reply Br. 21. “Kaler’s animated application model shows the
structure and activity of an application whose performance is being studied.”
Id. (citing Kaler, col. 32, ll. 28-34).
The Appellants’ Specification describes a bit-exact model as
“producing results that are the same as the original device that the software
model is modeling.” Spec., ¶ 33. In applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation with the Specification, “bit-exact model software” produces
the same results as the software being modeled. As the Examiner finds,
Kaler teaches “an animated application model which the present invention
generates to show the structure and activity of an application whose
performance is being studied.” Ans. 50 (citing Kaler, col. 32, ll. 28-34).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable. The rejection of claim 23 is
sustained. Claim 34 depends from claim 27 and is argued as patentable on
the same basis. App. Br. 24-27. Claims 42 and 46 depend from claim 19
and are argued patentable for the same reasons advanced regarding claim 23.
App. Br. 28. The rejections of claims 34, 42 and 46 are sustained for the
reasons previously stated.
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

16

Rejection of Claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 30 depends from claim 27 and includes the additional limitation
that the input information is recorded to “a memory device of the computer.”
The limitation is similar to claim 11 where we reversed the Examiner under
§ 102, and the Examiner relied on the same teachings of Abdelilah for
disclosing the limitation.
We reverse the rejection of claim 30. Claim 31 depends from claim
30 and the rejection of claim 31 is therefore reversed.

Rejection of Claims 35 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 35 depends from claim 27 and includes the additional limitation
“the model of the modem comprises a software component that is the same
as a software component of the modem.”
The Examiner finds Kaler teaches a model of a modem comprises a
software component that is the same as a software component of the modem.
Ans. 23 (citing Kaler, col. 33, ll. 15-20, Fig. 14). Figure 14 “illustrates
various user interface features of an animated application model in an
exemplary embodiment of the invention.” Id. Additionally, Kaler teaches an
animated application model which shows the “structure and activity of an
application whose performance is being studied.” Ans. 59 (citing Kaler, col.
32, ll. 28-34, Fig. 13).
Appellants contend the cited portion of Kaler is not a “software
component” and is just a user interface. Ans. 32.
Kaler models an “application,” i.e., a software component, as the
Examiner finds. Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error and the
Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

17

rejection of claim 35 is sustained. Claim 44 depends from claim 19 and is
argued as patentable on the same basis. App. Br. 32.
The rejections of claims 35 and 44 are sustained for the reasons
previously stated.

Rejection of Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 36 depends from claim 27 and includes the additional limitation
“the model of the modem comprises a hardware component that is the same
as a hardware component of the modem.”
The Examiner cites to similar teachings of Kaler made in connection
with claim 35. Ans. 24-25. The Examiner concludes it would have been
“obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to incorporate the teaching of Kaler into the teaching of Abdelilah to
modify Abdelilah's invention to include the model of the modem comprises
a hardware component that is the same as a hardware component of the
modem; and executing the model of the modem comprises utilizing the
hardware component.” Id.
Appellants contend Kaler’s teaching has no teaching of any hardware
component as a model for the modem. App. Br. 33.
We agree with Appellants. Kaler is directed to a software model and
does disclose a hardware model. The Examiner reaches, without support,
the conclusion that a hardware model would have been obvious. This is
insufficient.
The rejection of claim 36 is reversed.

Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

18

Rejection of Claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 45 depends from claim 19 and includes the additional limitation
“the model of the modem is a hardware model that comprises an actual
hardware component that is the same as a hardware component of the
modem being modeled.”
The limitation is similar to the limitation discussed in connection with
claim 36. The rejection of claim 45 is reversed for the reasons previously
stated addressing claim 36.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 40
under § 102.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 39, and 41 under § 102.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19-29, 32-35, 37, 38, 42-
44, and 46 under § 103.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30, 31, 36, and 45 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 19-29, 32-35,
37, 38, 40, 42-44, and 46 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 30, 31, 36, 39, 41, and
45 is reversed.

Appeal 2011-004290
Application 10/767,604

19

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-IN-PART

kis