Ex Parte Montanye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13735255 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
13/735,255 01/07/2013 Phillip Montanye 2012P02113US 6026
46726 7590 06/02/2017
RS»H Home. Ann1ianrp.s Pomoratinn
EXAMINER
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
SUGENT, JAMES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILLIP MONTANYE, GRAHAM SADTLER,
ELYS A SOFFER, AND ROBERT TANNEN
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—56. See App. Br. 1, ll.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed February 3, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 29,
2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 4, 2016, and
(4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 19, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a user interface for household
appliances. Spec. 12. The user interface has a status bar that displays
editable operational parameters. Id. These operational parameters can
include treatment mode, temperature, or duration. Id.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Gosnell US 2008/0126190 A1 May 29, 2008
Brown US 2011/0087987 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Murphy et al. US 2013/0092033 A1 Apr. 18, 2013
Jenn-Air, Jenn-Air® Built-In Electric Single and Double Ovens Use & Care
Guide (2011) (“Jenn-Air”).
Claims 50-56 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written-description requirement. Ans. 2—3
Claims 1—36 and 39-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jenn-Air and Murphy. Ans. 4—37.
Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jenn-Air, Murphy, and Brown. Ans. 37—38.
Claims 50-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jenn-Air, Murphy, and Gosnell. Ans. 38-43.
THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
Claim 50 recites, in part, “displaying the first parameter value in the
menu in the first portion and displaying the second submenu of parameter
2
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
values associated with the second parameter in the second portion
automatically and without further user input'’ (emphasis added).
The Examiner rejects claims 50—56 because the Examiner finds that
the specification does not provide support performing the displaying step
“automatically and without further user input.” Ans. 2—3.
Appellants argue that support for this feature can be found in step 452
of Figure 5 and the accompanying description in the Specification, as well as
other portions of the Specification. App. Br. 11.
We agree with Appellants.
The written description requirement is met when “the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
AriadPharm., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc).
Here, Figure 5 shows that step 454 (“Display First Operational
Parameter. . .”) and step 456 (“Display Second Screen / Parameter
Group . . .”) follow immediately from step 452 (“Detect User Input to First
Portion”) without any intervening steps. Additionally, the corresponding
description explains that display 300 displays the first operational parameter,
as in step 454, then displays a second screen, as in step 456. Spec. 136.
The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis to satisfy
the written description requirement. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atl. Richfield
Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, although the claimed
subject matter is not repeated in the same words in the Specification,
Appellants, nevertheless, have met the requirement. It is sufficient that, in
3
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
the above-discussed example, one display step follows the other “without
further user input,” as recited.
On this record, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that this
disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter of claims 50-56, as of the filing
date. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s written-description
rejection of claims 50-56.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JENN-AIR AND MURPHY
I. “a controller ”
Regarding claims 1, 8, 22, 28, and 34, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not shown that the recited controller is inherently taught by
the cited prior art. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 6—7. According to
Appellants, the Examiner relies on mere conclusions, and even assuming a
Jenn-Air inherently teaches a controller, the obviousness rejection cannot
rely upon such a teaching. Reply Br. 6—7.
The Examiner finds that the recited controller corresponds to Jenn-
Air’s control panel. Ans. 47. We are not persuaded by Appellants that the
Examiner erred in this regard.
The Specification discloses that a controller “may include a central
processing unit or CPU 516, a system bus 514 that communicates with RAM
518 and storage or a memory device 504.” Spec. 127 (emphasis added).
We emphasize “may” here because this language indicates that the controller
is not limited to these particular components. See id.', accord id. 1 53. Apart
from this discussion, the Specification does not define the term “controller”
4
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
beyond its ordinary meaning such that the claims should be interpreted to
require particular hardware or other structure.
For example, one plain meaning is “a device which controls the
operation of another piece of equipment.” Harry Newton, Newton’s
Telecom Dictionary 215 (21st ed. 2005). And this meaning is consistent
with the Specification, which provides only non-limiting examples, as
discussed above.
In the claims, the controller is limited by the recited programming and
the corresponding control functions. In particular, claims 8, 22, and 34
recite a “controller programmed to” carry out various functions. In
addressing these functions, the Examiner cites the operation of the display
on Jenn-Air’s control panel. See Ans. 9 (citing Jenn-Air p. 6—7 in rejecting
claim 8); Ans. 18—19 (citing Jenn-Air p. 7 in rejecting claim 22); Ans. 28
(citing Jenn-Air p. 7 in rejecting claim 34).
The Examiner’s finding is supported by Jenn-Air’s disclosure that the
control panel controls a digital menu’s display and operation. Jenn-Air p. 7.
The Examiner’s finding is further supported by Jenn-Air’s disclosure that
the “control panel houses the control menu and function controls.” Jenn-Air
p. 5, cited in Ans. 47. So, Jenn-Air teaches a control panel that controls at
least the operation of the interactive touch display. See Ans. 47. On this
record, the Examiner’s finding that Jenn-Air’s teaches a controller
programmed to carry out control functions, as recited in claims 8, 22, and 34
{id.) is supported by the weight of the evidence here.
Unlike claims 8, 22, and 34, which recite a programmed controller,
claims 1,15, and 28 recite a method for controlling a domestic appliance.
The recited domestic appliance has a controller. So, the same analysis
5
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
discussed in connection with claims 8, 22, and 34 applies to claims 1,15,
and 28.
We further note that the method steps claim 1 does not refer back to
the controller in the recited preamble. Rather, claim l’s method steps
broadly refer to parameters, values, and menus. To the extent that
Appellants’ argument depends on the controller’s programming carrying out
the recited steps, we are unpersuaded for this additional reason.
We address Appellants’ arguments regarding specific functions in the
following sections.
II. Claims 1 and 8
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Appellants argue that Jenn-Air and Murphy
do not teach the (1) detecting user input to the second portion and (2)
displaying the first parameter value and the second submenu “in response to
the user input,” as recited. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 4—7. According to
Appellants, the claim requires that the displaying step occurs “in response to
the user input,” but the cited teachings from Jenn-Air requires two separate
inputs. App. Br. 13—14 (emphasis in original).
That is, Appellants contend that Jenn-Air does not teach a single input
value that causes both the recited (1) “displaying the first parameter value in
the menu in the first portion” and (2) “displaying a second submenu of
parameter values associated with a second parameter in the second portion.”
App. Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellants that “detecting user input” requires
detecting a single menu selection. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 4—7. Here, the
Examiner’s claim interpretation that “detecting user input” covers Jenn-Air’s
6
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
detection of several selections (Ans. 48) is reasonable. In other words, the
Examiner interprets the recited input to mean the collective selections of
Jenn-Air’s user. See id. The Examiner’s interpretation (id.) is consistent
with the Specification, which provides only non-limiting examples of user
input (accord Spec. 1 53).
Appellants argue that even if “detecting user input” could be
interpreted as multiple inputs, the two displaying steps are “in response to
the user input associated with the first parameter value.” Reply Br. 9
(emphasis in original). We disagree. The antecedent basis for “the user
input” is the input recited in the detecting step. The subsequent use of
definite article “the” or “said” in a claim to refer back to the same claim term
simply re-invokes the non-singular meaning. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc.
v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Given this understanding of the claim, we agree that Jenn-Air teaches
displaying the first parameter and displaying a second submenu “in response
to the user input,” as recited. Ans. 48 49. To summarize Jenn-Air’s
teachings, a first user input to Jenn-Air’s Bake button causes Bake to replace
Modes on the screen (“displaying a first parameter value” as recited). Jenn-
Air p. 7 (steps 2 and 3); accord Reply Br. 8. And second user input changes
Modes menu to Temperature screen (“displaying a second submenu” as
recited). Jenn-Air p. 7; accord Reply Br. 8. Here, the issue is whether these
two displaying steps are “in response to the user input,” as recited. We
agree with the Examiner that they are (Ans. 49) because “the user input” in
the limitation at issue refers back to the plural meaning in the “detecting”
step in claim 1. That is, claim 1 covers two recited displaying steps in
7
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
response to the user’s multiple selections, which agrees with the Examiner’s
construction {id. at 50).
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the § 103
rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and claims 2—7 and 9—14, which are
not separately argued with particularity.
III. Claims 15 and 22
Appellants present arguments against the rejections of claims 15 and
22 that are similar to those discussed in the previous section. Compare
App. Br. 15—16 with App. Br. 12—14; see also Reply Br. 10-11.
Furthermore, Appellants argue that the rejection cites three separate user
inputs to trigger the features of Jenn-Air cited for the display step.
App. Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 11. Appellants’ argument, however, is based on
the same narrow reading of “user input” discussed above. See App. Br. lb-
17. That is, in Appellants’ view, the claim only requires one user input.
Id. at 17.
Similar to claim 1, claim 15 recites, in part, “detecting user input” and
two displaying steps “based on the user input.” Likewise, claim 22 recites,
in part, a controller programmed to “receive user input” and instruct the
display to display two items “based on the user input.” Because all three
claims recite “detecting user input” and refer to “the user input” in the
displaying steps, the claim construction presented in section II applies to
claims 15 and 22. So, for the reasons discussed in connection with claims 1
and 8, we find Appellants’ arguments as applied to claims 15 and 22
unpersuasive.
8
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the § 103
rejection of (1) independent claims 15 and 22, and (2) claims 16—21 and 23—
27, which are not separately argued with particularity.
IV. Claims 28 and 34
Appellants’ arguments against the rejections of claims 28 and 34
(App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 11—12) present the same issues discussed above
in connection with claim 15 and 22. In particular, the arguments regarding
claims 28 and 34 are similar to, and largely repeat, previous arguments for
claim 15 and 22 (compare App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 11—12 with
App. Br. 12—14; Reply Br. 10—11).
Like claim 1, claim 28 recites, in part, “detecting user input” and two
displaying steps “in response to the user input.” Likewise, claim 34 recites,
in part, a controller programmed to “receive user input” and instruct the
display to display two items “in response to the user input.” Because all
three claims recite “detecting user input” and refer to “the user input” in the
displaying steps, the claim construction presented in section II applies to
claims 28 and 34. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the previous
sections regarding claims 1,15, and 22, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the rejection of (1) independent claims 28 and 34 and (2) claims 29—
33, 35, 36, 39, 48, and 49, which are not separately argued with particularity.
V. Claim 40
Similar to the above-discussed arguments, Appellants argue that claim
40 does not require two separate inputs like Jenn-Air. App. Br. 19—20;
Reply Br. 13. According to Appellants, Jenn-Air has two instances of
9
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
displayed information that each require a separate user input. Reply Br. 13.
Appellants emphasize that claim 40 recites “once the first treatment
parameter has been inputted.” App. Br. 19 (emphasis in original).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 40. Ans. 57.
Rather, claim 40 recites, in part, “inputting a first treatment parameter
from the first parameter group with the input element” and “displaying on a
status side of the display a status screen that shows the first treatment
parameter and displaying a second treatment parameter screen for inputting
a second treatment parameter from a second parameter group on the primary
portion of the display once the first treatment parameter has been inputted”
(emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that the article “a” does not limit the
claimed treatment parameter to one parameter. See Ans. 58.
“As a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry
the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar
Commons Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The
exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must
evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin
Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“The subsequent use of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a
claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the
general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular
meaning.” Id. An exception to the general rule arises only
“where the language of the claims themselves, the specification,
or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.”
Id. at 1342-43.
01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeln, Inc, 687 F.3d 1292, 1297
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, neither the Specification nor the language of the
claims themselves requires a single parameter. Because the recited
10
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
treatment parameter covers one or more parameters, we are unpersuaded by
Appellants argument based on Jenn-Air’s two separate inputs for the reasons
discussed in section II regarding “user input.” App. Br. 19—20;
Reply Br. 13.
Furthermore, unlike claim 1, claim 40 recites “once the first treatment
parameter” instead of “in response to the user input.” As discussed above,
later use of the definite article “the” in claim 40 refers back does not change
the non-singular meaning of the term, as Appellants’ arguments suggest.
See App. Br. 19 (emphasizing “the”). Moreover, dependent claim 56 adds
the limitation “automatically and without further user input.” Although
differences between the dependent claim and the independent claim are not a
conclusive basis for construing claims, the differences here are further
evidence that “once the first treatment parameter has been inputted,” as
recited claim 40, is not limited to “automatically and without further user
input” as recited in its dependent claim. Additionally, claim 40 contains
“comprising” language in the preamble that does not exclude additional,
unrecited elements. On this record, the weight of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s interpretation that claim 40 does not exclude Jenn-Air’s
parameter input. See Ans. 58—59.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40.
VI. Claims 46 and 47
Appellants argue that Murphy does not teach “displaying the second
parameter value in place of the first parameter value in the menu in the first
portion.” App. Br. 20. According to Appellants, the Examiner has only
provided a “generic explanation” to describe how the cited portions of
11
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
Murphy teach the claims. Id. at 21. In Appellants’ view, the rejection does
nothing more than copy and paste the same citations from the rejection of
claim 1 into the rejection of claim 46. Id.; Reply Br. 14. Appellants contend
that the Examiner’s reliance on identical citations even though the claim
features are different further shows that Murphy and Jenn-Air do not teach
the recited features. App. Br. 21. According to Appellants, it is unclear how
claim reads on the Examiner’s interpretation of Murphy. Reply Br. 14.
But this is not a case where the rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents Appellants from recognizing and countering the grounds of
rejection. Rather, the Examiner’s articulated position is based on Murphy’s
Back button, which, in the Examiner’s view, is evidence of obviousness
(Ans. 35—36)—a finding that is articulated in the rejection and, therefore,
subject to rebuttal. Although Appellants allege that Murphy does not
disclose the recited features, Appellants do not explain, persuasively, why
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions are deficient.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Murphy’s user can go forward or
backward in the parameter-entry process. Ans. 61. So like claims 46 and
47, which require displaying the second parameter in place of the first, the
Examiner finds that Murphy teaches displaying the last or next parameter
portion in place of the previous or next parameter submenu. Id. Indeed,
Murphy teaches that the operator may use back button to go back the view
shown in Figure 9 to change the cooking method. Murphy | 60, cited in
Ans. 35—36. And the cooking method is a parameter value shown in the user
interface. See, e.g., Murphy, Fig. 11, cited in Ans. 35—36. On the weight of
this evidence, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 46 and 47.
12
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JENN-AIR, MURPHY, AND
GOSNELL
Claim 50 recites, in part, “displaying the first parameter value in the
menu in the first portion and displaying the second submenu of parameter
values associated with the second parameter in the second portion
automatically and without further user input” (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that nothing in Gosnell teaches displaying features
occurring in response to the recited user input and “automatically and
without further user input.” App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15. According to
Appellants, the cited passage describes changing whole pages, not just
displaying “parameter values” and “submenus,” as a result of user input.
App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 16. Appellants further contend that Gosnell
automatically advancing to the next question when the previous question is
answered—but claim 50 excludes “further user input.” App. Br. 22;
Reply Br. 16. Appellants further argue that Gosnell teaches away from the
claimed invention. Reply Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument against Gosnell
because this argument amounts to attacking Gosnell individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination Jenn-Air, Murphy,
and Gosnell. See Ans. 38, 62. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981);
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular,
Gosnell is not relied upon to teach “displaying” features occurring “in
response to the user input associated with the first parameter value” and
“automatically and without further user input,” as Appellants argue
13
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
(App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 16). Rather, the Examiner relies on Gosnell for the
limited purpose of showing that it would have been obvious to advance the
display without the need for additional user input. Ans. 38, 62. The
Examiner then proposes incorporating this feature in Jenn-Air to
automatically advance to the next page without further interaction from the
user when the parameter is entered. Ans. 38.
Likewise, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gosnell’s
user’s act of answering questions is additional user input. App. Br. 22;
Reply Br. 15—16. Nor are we convinced that Gosnell would discourage one
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, from following the path set out
in the reference or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken, to teach away. Reply Br. 16. Instead, in the cited portion of
Gosnell, a question is displayed with the site automatically advancing to a
new displayed question when a question is entered. Gosnell 1 63. By
contrast, Jenn-Air’s system requires the user to enter parameters and then
provide additional input to change the display. Jenn-Air p. 7. That is, like
claim 50, Gosnell does not require input in addition to the user’s response to
the question. See Gosnell 1 63. On this record, we see no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Gosnell for the limited purpose that it was cited for
within the proposed combination. Ans. 38, 62.
Appellants further argue that Gosnell is not analogous to the claimed
invention. App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 17—18. We disagree. Prior art is
analogous if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor as that of Appellant’s
invention regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Gosnell is at least reasonably
14
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved—
collecting user input for a user interface (see Spec. 12). Appellants
characterize the problem to be solved as controlling a domestic appliance.
See App. Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 17—18. Yet the claims are directed to
collecting the parameters and the instructions given to display for presenting
a menu to the user. Similarly, Gosnell discloses a method to collect user
input and display a set of selectable options for the user. See Gosnell 1 63.
Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of (1) claim 50 and (2) claims 51—56, which are argued together (see
App. Br. 21—22).
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JENN-AIR, MURPHY, AND
BROWN
Claims 37 and 38 depend from claims 28 and 34. Appellants do not
provide separate arguments against the rejection for claims 37 and 38 under
Jenn-Air, Murphy, and Brown. See App. Br. 12—23; Reply Br. 4—18. For
the reasons discussed in connection with claims 28 and 34, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 37 and 38.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 50—56 under § 112,
first paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—56 under § 103.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(a)(1).
15
Appeal 2017-003872
Application 13/735,255
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16
NEWTON'S
TELECOM
DIGIONARY
STAY INFORMED
To be olerted by email to news, updates and corrections
send a blank email to newton@news.cmpbooks.CQm
or 0° to www.cmpbooks.com/newton
L, ivs s"" Books
^EWTON's TELKOM SSCTOi'JARY
Harry Newton
i^lai:is!^!iHt!ftyN8Wton.com
ipSpnatweb site: www.Hflnyffevton.cBiH:
business web site www.toSeafch0fIh6Peifecflnvestment.com
Albrights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright conventions,
jpluding the right to reproduce this hook or portions thereof in any form whats
Published by
CffiP Books
An imprint of CMP Media LfC
®Q Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone 4T5-947-66I5 and Fax 415-947-6015
email.' bopkorders@cmp.com
www.cmphoob.com
United Business Media
:fpr ihdividuol or quantity orders
iClfigob
6600 Silacci Woy Gilroy, CA 95020
li 1-800-500-6875 or I-408-848-5296
;Fox: 408-848-5784
cmp@mshorder.cpm
Phis book is also sold through www.Amazsn.com,www.Fatbrain.com,
iWpiBarnesAndHobie.com and all fine booksellers worldwide.
i||fribpted to the book trade in the U.S. by
ipohiishers Group West
||0 Fourth St., Berkeley, CA 94710
l||Bmhsr 1-57820-315-5
Hlli'2005
i®kdbi:|tst Edition
ildliidldFiiFubfchef
Mortal: SSitiOr: Contributing Editor
and Oamien Castaneda
:|di|dpfi|to®|Sgne, Greene Design
C»S8$r»l Fissf / £©K5f«S’fS55«S
..|§ll8|(;pht>ne term. A 6-bit flag transmitted in the toward channel
busy/ttlie flag and one bit of the 5-bit decode status flag.
|$j lights Indicates that the cellular phone is outside the
s$se£ Signalling messages that provide the control of setup, mnin-
sessions and tumeis._ See 12TP.
tradissSba 1. Measures taken to minimize
:S'"'jjpp8riafing froni a system or component, or to minimize electro-
|;:$ih:ropttres are taken for purposes of security and/or the reduc-
/pptfywsbips and aircraft.
....... 1 jarf:to minimize the use of electromagnetic radiation in the
___ errs .and the Panama Canal Zone .in the event of attack or
%ii|tds-:» old ro the navigation of hostile aircraft, guided missiles, or
Pragrnmming-like constructs (IF, ELSE, WHILE,
^pijgdiyififfltsact-SQL so that the user can control the flow of exe-
“ifdii^i-ssfcifsd procedures, ond triggers. This definition from Microsoft
Jiispfrekpanei on the Apple Macintosh is for general hardware and
ni®s:cigW:;a::user to customize the system or application, or select a
■^sjs:®:spifictpnntei, set the sound level, the date and time and
psectierotbrough the network control panel.
-■■i^WTMptacol includes a Control Plane which addresses ail aspects
' piijsaiythraogh all 4 layers of the model.
Ji;|{:IM;:SMA::(5Ystems Network Architecture) networks, a Control
liiaWSikiAccessible Unit, previously known os Network Addressable
hiemelwsrfetesources within its domain of control, controlling the
tsalffisowces: and the monitoring of their status. Such reseurces
pdi»S8£h:®:link5 ond nodes, ond logical resources such as oet-
Sfi&iwaMtcessrble Unit, a Control Point is accessible over the SNA
;:|Sfei:f«!dwide:ne1work of Global Positioning System monitoring
.ptesensuraifre accuracy of satellite positions and their clocks.
(IldgiflpiljifineWork, control signals are used for auxiliary' firnc-
’’'■Jtapiipaitng arid interoffice trunk signaling. Control signals ore
ste&lfctand Coin Return and Parly Identification. Control
ISifiStifesmalmg include Start Dial (Wink or Delay Dial) signals,
l|riy;|dfe::ISf):::stgnals.
iersciittasyceontral signals are modem interface signals used to
' pfctian. Here's a tobie showing common RS-232-C and
From To
DTE DCE
DCE DTE
DCE DTE
DCE DTE
DTE DCE
DCE DTE
I Signs!
Me®) :.CfS)
lliiliDSR)
liP:(CD;
ta Eki emuliMcress link, a station that is in charge of such functions
^Itoaihematical: analysis of the systems and mechanisms for
.(.taptelaarpngtntemol and external conditions,
ilflliitetcsifstdhatier within the Universal Information Services net-
. Jlfepeftnetwerk's connection control function.
.|:®llfetetaf*eomponent of a processor chip which orchestrates
.IfdtelprisgTa ntoKe1 sure the processor doesn't overlap functions.
^.......gCSIlfeaEcess' to a system is limited to authorized programs,
.psteRsmetwork).
v®»Sk U\C It is a low maintenance, water-tight
.«;j^!?i:!i?P!Cal!y:huried in the ground which provides permanent
vJMslttjateifine corrcentrators, pair gain and fiber transmission
,.^)i;lfcpften;be instolled in utility easements or other places
where local building lows may be a problem. This below ground room that houses elec­
tronic and/or optical equipment is under controlled temperature and humidity conditions.
«©sst8,©ll@s’ T. In the truest sense, a device which controls the operation of another
piece of equipment. In its more common data communications sense, o device between a
nost and terminals that relays information between them. It administers their communica­
tion. Controllers may be housed in the best, can be stand-alone, or can be located in a file
server. Typically one controller will be connected to several terminals. The most common
controller is the IBM Cluster Controller for their 370 family of mainframes. In an automat­
ed radio, a controller is a device that commends the radio transmitter and receiver, and that
performs processes, such as automatic link establishment, channel scanning and selection,
link quality'analysis, palling, sounding, message store and forward, address protection, ond
anti-spoofing.
2. Participant in a conference tali who sets up the conference call.
£®ta£r®ll«S' Csss'sS Also called a hard disk/diskette drive controller. It's an add-in card
which controls how data are written to and retrieved from your PC's various floppy and hard
drives. Controller cards come in various flavors, including MEN ond SCSI. Controller cards
are the devices used to format hard drives. Controller cords are not hard drive specific
(except within categories). Controller cards will format many drives. But once you have a
hard drive that has been formatted by that one controller card, it tends to prefer talking to
that controller card forever. If you switch your hard disk to another machine, switch the
controller card along with it. If you switch your hard disk to another machine, but not the
controller card, then format the hard disk. That's not a "100% Do It Or Else You'll Be
Disappointed" rule. But just e "Play It Safe and Switch Them" rule.
«®5iir®Sl@j'less swedesss A modem that shifts all the protocol management, error
detection and correction, and data compression onto software running on the system's
CPU. This allows the modem manufacturer to make a much cheaper modem that does not
require file mentor/ or processing power of a traditional modem. Also known as a soft
modem.
«®83f«S!,S8ig in digital facsimile, density step lines in received copy resulting from ana-
log-to-digifal conversion when the original image bus observable gray shadings between the
smallest density steps of the digital system.
C0HISS A term for CONtiguous United States (lower 48 states). See Contiguous United
States.
«®®westi®89 «@®i88«fj Design techniques used in switching system construction to
permit safe hoot dissipation from the equipment without the need for cooling fans,
ssm'evt®?' The device which covers the steam heating radiator in buildings and typi­
cally sits underneath a window. Also called a wectbermaster.
«®ot©«Sw ffl#1®® An area allocated for heat circulation ond distribution. Convector
areas, typically built into a wall, con be used os o satellite location only if o more suitable
area is unavailable.
«©saw®Bsf (®ffi A rule of conduct or behavior which has been reached by general agree­
ment, commonly by o standards-mcking body, whether formal (e.g., the ITU) or ad hoc
(e.g., Bell Telephone Laboratories) in nature. For example, the T-f framing conventions
were developed by Bell Labs for use within the Bell System network in North America, and
later were formalized ot the international level by the ITU-T. See also Bell Telephone
laboratories, ITU-T, and T-l.
«®sw®8Sfi©8«ffiS sffjissslissg The inter-machine signaling system that has been tra­
ditionally used in North America for the purpose of transmitting the called number's address
digits (telephone number) from the originating end office to the switching machine that
will terminate the call. In this system, oil dialed digits are received by the originating switch­
ing machine, a pntb is selected, and the sequence of supervisory signals ond outpulsed dig­
its is initiated. No overlap oufpulsing, ten-digit Automatic Number Identification (ANI), infor­
mation digits, or acknowledgment wink ore included in this signaling sequence,
sesraerged! si@f ssrsi'k, Used to describe trends toward the bundling of services by
operators. Principally found in die United States, where regulation historically hos separat­
ed the local ond long distance carrier functions.
«®w©r«j©&«© 1. A measure of the clarity of a color monitor. A measure of bow close­
ly the red, green ond blue guns in a color monitor track each other when drawing a color
image. The other measures ore focus and dot pitch.
2. A routing term. The point ot which all the internetworking devices share a common
understanding of the routing topology. The slower the convergence time, the slower the
recovery from link failure.
3. The word to describe a trend—now that most media con be represented digitally—
215