Ex Parte Macauley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 4, 2011

11312943 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 4, 2011)

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.
11/312,943 12/20/2005 Daniel W. Macauley 9457-32 4937
79207 7590 03/07/2011
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27612
EXAMINER
BARBEE, MANUEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL W. MACAULEY, MICHAEL G. GERMAN,
MATIAS PELUFFO, and HESTER TSUI
____________________

Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to telecommunications patching
systems wherein a work order is generated in response to detecting the
relocation of a patch cord connector at the patch panel (Spec. 3:31-4:10).
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
1. A method of notifying technicians of work to be performed on a
telecommunications system, wherein the telecommunications system
includes a patch panel having a plurality of connector ports, and a
plurality of patch cords configured to selectively interconnect pairs of
the connector ports, wherein each patch cord has opposite ends and a
respective connector secured to each end, wherein each connector is
configured to be removably secured within a connector port, the
method comprising:
monitoring patch cord interconnections with the connector
ports;
generating a work order in response to detecting relocation of a
patch cord connector at the patch panel, wherein the work order
details work to be performed by a technician associated with the
relocation of the patch cord connector; and
automatically notifying a technician that a work order has been
generated.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising requesting
acknowledgment from a technician that a work order notification was
received.
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

3
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising notifying an
alternate technician that a work order has been generated if an
acknowledgment of a previously sent work order notification has not
been received within a predetermined period of time.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Bartolutti US 6,522,737 B1 Feb, 18, 2003
Bull US 2004/0044554 A1 Mar. 4, 2004

Claims 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bartolutti.
Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bartolutti and Bull.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 7, and 15 as being obvious over Bartolutti because the reference
does not teach or suggest all the claimed features (App. Br. 5-8). Appellants
specifically assert that communicating a work order in Bartolutti is not the
same as “generating a work order in response to detecting relocation of a
patch cord connector at the patch panel,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6).
Appellants further argue that Bartolutti’s displaying an error message to the
technician merely indicates that something is incorrectly installed and/or
non-functional, but does not meet the claimed “‘automatically notifying a
technician that a work order has been generated’” (App. Br. 7-8).
Appellants rely on the same contentions outlined above to challenge
the rejection of claims 10, 14, 18, and 22 (App. Br. 8). Similarly, with
respect to the remaining claims, Appellants argue the patentability of claims
4-6, 11-13, and 19-21 based on the same reasons presented for claims 1, 7,
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

4
and 15. Therefore, we select claim 1 as the representative claim, pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
With respect to claims 3, 9, and 17, Appellants contend that the relied-
on portions of Bull show no relation between the “‘predetermined period’”
and the “‘reassigning’” activity (App. Br. 9-10). Appellants conclude that
the combination of Bartolutti and Bull fails to disclose or suggest the subject
matter of claims 3, 9, and 17 (App. Br. 10). Therefore, we select claim 3 as
the representative claim.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 16, Appellants argue that the cited portion
of Bull does not disclose or suggest “‘requesting acknowledgement from a
technician that a work order notification was received’” (App. Br. 10).
Appellants conclude that the combination of Bartolutti and Bull fails to
disclose or suggest the subject matter of claims 2, 8, and 16 (id.). Similarly,
we select claim 2 as the representative claim.

ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by
Bartolutti because the reference fails to teach the recited steps of generating
a work order and automatically notifying a technician that a work order has
been generated?
2. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Bartolutti and Bull because the combination of the
references fails to teach or disclose the claimed step of “requesting
acknowledgement from a technician that a work order notification was
received?”
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

5
3. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as being
unpatentable over Bartolutti and Bull because the combination of the
references fails to teach or disclose the claimed step of notifying an alternate
technician?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1-3 for emphasis as follows.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection of Claim 1
With respect to the claimed step of generating a work order, we
understand the Examiner’s position to be that Bartolutti must generate a
work order in order to be able to communicate that work order, as discussed
in column 6, lines 34-46 (Ans. 5). The Examiner further cites (Ans. 3) to the
“SUMMARY OF INVENTION” section of Bartolutti, starting at column 3,
line 47, for disclosing that the status of the telecommunications patching
system is sent to a remote location (col. 3, ll. 47-49) which, when accessed,
allows a technician to predetermine the amount of work needed to complete
a scheduled task (col. 4, ll. 7-10). Bartolutti further discloses that the
technician can read on site the paperless work order instructions fed directly
to the telecommunications closet (col. 4, ll. 12-14).
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

6
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 2-3),
Bartolutti describes sending paperless work order instructions to the closet
which requires such instructions to have been generated before they are fed
to the telecommunications closet and read on-site by the technician. We
observe that Bartolutti describes a display associated with a hand-held
device or each rack controller for receiving the paperless work order (col. 6,
ll. 30-40). As such, Bartolutti does generate a work order that is displayed
and details the work to be done by the technician.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellants’ position that “as Bartolutti
is silent as to the generation of a work order, one can reasonably conclude
that a work order, if any, is generated by another system and/or a person”
(Reply Br. 3). As discussed above, Bartolutti generates and provides a
paperless work order to the technician via the rack controller display or on a
hand-held device. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any specific entity
that is to generate the work order.
With respect to the claimed step of notifying a technician that a work
order has been generated, we also find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument
that displaying an error message in Bartolutti is not the same as notifying a
technician (App. Br. 8), or that the disputed limitation is not taught in Bull
(Reply Br. 4-5). As discussed above, Bartolutti communicates the status of a
patching system to a remote location (col. 3, ll. 47-49) which notifies a
technician of the task and allows the technician to access the paperless work
order and ascertain the amount of needed work (col. 4, ll. 7-14).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 2
With respect to the rejection of claim 2, we also agree with the
Examiner’s stated position and rationale (Ans. 4, 7) that assigning the ticket
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

7
to a technician that causes the technician to review and acknowledge the
receipt of the ticket in Bull meets the claimed limitation. In fact Figure 1 of
Bull shows a high level flow chart including separate dispatcher and
technician sections. The dispatcher assigns the confirmed work order or the
ticket to a technician in step 118 (see ¶ [0053]), which causes the technician
to acknowledge the receipt of the work order upon receiving and reviewing
the work order (see ¶ [0054]). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contention
(Reply Br. 5), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that assigning
and sending a work order to the technician functions as the claimed step of
requesting acknowledgment from a technician because Bull requires the
technician to review the work order and acknowledge its receipt if that
technician is to work the ticket.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 3
Lastly, with respect to the rejection of claim 3, we also agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 7) that the claimed step of notifying an alternate technician
if acknowledgment is not received within a predetermined period of time is
taught by Bull. The Examiner cites to paragraph [0067] of Bull which
discusses reassigning the tickets not acknowledged within a certain time
after assignment. As discussed above, assigning the work order to another
technician taught in Bull in combination with the teachings of Bartolutti
regarding notifying the technician via communicating the patching system
status meets the features recited in claim 3.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated
by Bartolutti because the reference does teach the recited steps of generating
Appeal 2009-009713
Application 11/312,943

8
a work order and automatically notifying a technician that a work order has
been generated.
2. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Bartolutti and Bull because the combination of the
references does teach or disclose the claimed step of “requesting
acknowledgement from a technician that a work order notification was
received.”
3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as being unpatentable
over Bartolutti and Bull because the combination of the references does
teach or disclose the claimed step of notifying an alternate technician.
4. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18,
and 22 over Bartolutti, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
2-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19-21 over Bartolutti and Bull, is sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED
kis
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27612