11312914 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2011)

Ex Parte Macauley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 23, 2011

11312914 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 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. 11/312,914 12/20/2005 Daniel W. Macauley 9457-31 5160 79207 7590 08/24/2011 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27612 EXAMINER BARBEE, MANUEL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2857 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2011 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 GEORGE BROOKS ____________ Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-25. Claims 7 and 19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to methods, systems, and computer program products for interconnecting network equipment with telecommunications systems (see Spec. 3:30-34). Exemplary independent claims 6 and 12 read as follows: 6. A method of monitoring a telecommunications system, wherein the telecommunications system includes a patch panel having a plurality of connector ports, the method comprising: monitoring one or more ports associated with network equipment connected to the telecommunications system via the patch panel; disabling a network equipment port that is inactive for a predetermined period of time; and notifying a technician that the network equipment port has been intentionally disabled. 12. A telecommunications system, comprising: network equipment having a connector port; a patch panel having a plurality of connector ports; means for identifying a patch panel connector port to be connected to the network equipment port; and means for generating a work order that instructs a technician to connect the identified patch panel connector port to the network equipment port via a patch cord, wherein the patch cord has opposite ends and a respective connector secured to each end, wherein one connector is configured to be removably secured within the identified patch panel port and the other connector is configured to be removably secured within the network equipment port. Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Caveney US 2004/0073597 A1 Apr. 15, 2004 Stanescu US 6,784,802 B1 Aug. 31, 2004 Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 3 Basso US 7,050,940 B2 May 23, 2006 Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Stanescu. Claims 1-5, 15-17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stanescu and Caveney. Claims 6, 8-11, 18, 20-23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Caveney and Basso. Appellants’ Contentions With respect to claim 12, Appellants contend that Stanescu does not support a finding of anticipation because the cited portions of the reference indicate that, instead of a telecommunication system, an administrator identifies a patch panel connector port to be connected and generates a work order (App. Br. 5-6). Appellants specifically assert: “[t]he administrator” described in Stanescu may not be properly construed as “means for identifying” or “means for generating” recitations of a system claim as “the administrator” may not be a component in a telecommunication system under the tenets of 35 U.S.C. § 101 since “the administrator” in Stanescu is a naturally occurring article and represents non-statutory subject matter. (App. Br 6). Moreover, according to the cited portion of Stanescu, the cords and ports in Stanescu appear to be “checked if they match previously input addresses in the mating matrix.” Stanescu, column 5, lines 1-3. Thus, in contrast with “means for identifying a patch panel connector port to be connected,” as recited in Claim 12, the cited portion of Stanescu checks cords and ports that are already connected. As discussed above, MAC related activity subsequent to the checking described in Stanescu is performed by an administrator. Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 4 (App. Br 7). With respect to claim 1, Appellants rely on arguments similar to those presented regarding claim 12 and assert that “the administrator” in Stanescu may not be properly construed as performing the recited identifying and generating steps (App. Br. 8). With respect to claims 6 and 18, Appellants contend that the LED indicators of Caveney merely show the location of inoperable cables, but do not notify a technician that the network equipment port has been disabled (App. Br. 9). Appellants further assert that LED indicators of Caveney are associated only with active jacks and do not notify the technician that the port is intentionally disabled (id. at 10). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) 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 6 and 12 for emphasis as follows. With respect to claim 12, we note that the Examiner properly characterized the graphical user interface in Stanescu as the claimed means for identifying a patch panel connector port and means for generating a work order (Ans. 11-12). As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 12), the graphical user interface is a part of the system, which, as directed by the administrator, Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 5 performs the functions of identifying a patch panel connector port and generating a work order (see Stanescu, col. 5, ll. 6-10). Contrary to Appellants’ position (Reply Br. 2), this interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification (see Spec. 9:9-15) which describes a system administrator selecting a service to be provided based on the determined port and generating an electronic work order. Similarly, regarding claim 6, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (Ans. 13) that Basso teaches the disputed features of claims 6 and 18. The relied-on portion of Basso in column 1, lines 35-67 discloses disconnecting the ports that have timed out and therefore, meets the claimed step of notifying the technician of the intentionally disabled ports. We also find that the Examiner properly concluded that using the LED indicators of Caveney for intentionally disabled jack would have been obvious and available to the skilled artisan as one of the known ways for identifying any specific port. As stated by the Supreme Court, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in Appeal 2009-008925 Application 11/312,914 6 rejecting the claims as being anticipated by Stanescu or as obvious over Stanescu and Caveney or over Caveney and Basso. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 6, 12, and 18, and of claims 2-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 20-25 dependent thereon, which are not separately argued. DECISION1 The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-25 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)(iv). AFFIRMED ke 1 We have decided the appeal before us. However, in case of further prosecution of these claims, the Examiner’s attention is directed to recently issued guidance from the Director and our reviewing courts. Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 12-17, the Examiner’s attention is directed to Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7170-71 (Feb. 9, 2011).