Ex Parte Nattkemper

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2011

10449259 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DIETER H. NATTKEMPER
___________

Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-40, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention is directed to power management for line
powered network elements by provisioning a power controller with at least
one power criterion to use in controlling the network operation based on a
monitored power condition (Spec. ¶ [0016]). Claim 1, which is illustrative
of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for controlling a line-powered network
element in an access network, the method comprising:
provisioning at least one instance of a line power
controller at the line-powered network element;
provisioning at least one conductive medium associated
with the at least one instance of the line power controller;
receiving at least one primitive for use by the line power
controller for managing the line-powered network element;
provisioning at least one line power control function
associated with the at least one instance of the line power
controller;
monitoring at least one of the at least one primitive; and
selectively taking action through the at least one line
power control function based on the monitored ones of the at
least one primitive in response to power conditions for the line-
powered network element.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relied on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Curtis US 5,774,689 Jun. 30, 1998
Manchester US 5,818,125 Oct. 6, 1998
Flaugher US 5,990,575 Nov. 23, 1999
Howard US 2003/0014677 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Caveney US 2003/0154276 A1 Aug. 14, 2003
Gough US 2005/0064914 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Binder US 2005/0163152 A1 Jul. 28, 2005
Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259

3
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 14, 21-24, 28, 29, 30, 37, and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flaugher and Curtis.
Claims 5, 9-11, 15, 16-18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flaugher, Curtis, and Howard.
Claims 6, 12, 19, 26, 35, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flaugher, Curtis, and Binder.
Claims 7, 13, 20, 27, 31, 35, 36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flaugher, Curtis, and Caveney.
Claims 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Flaugher, Curtis, and Gough.

Appellant’s Contentions
With respect to claims 1 and 21, Appellant contends (App. Br. 9) that
[N]othing in Flaugher or Curtis teaches or suggests “selectively
taking action through the at least one line power control
function based on the monitored ones of the at least one
primitive in response to power conditions for the line-powered
network element.”
(Emphasis in original).

Appellant relies (id.) on paragraph [0029] of the Specification for defining
the “characteristics of primitives” as follows:
“[P]rimitives provide information and parameters that define a
set of actions and criteria for managing services provisioned
on the network element under various power conditions. For
example, primitives define action or power criteria for
managing the network element based on factors such as
available power, power head-room, priority of services, or
terms of service level agreements for various subscribers.”
(Emphasis in original).

Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259

4
Appellant appears to take the Examiner’s position as equating
primitives to power failure (App. Br. 10) or to the act of adjusting operation
of the network (Reply Br. 2), and concludes that such position is contrary to
the disclosed description of primitives.
Appellant relies on similar arguments in support of the patentability of
independent claims 8, 14, 28, and 37, and presents various arguments for the
dependent claims similar to those presented for claims 1 and 21 or by merely
pointing out the recited features of these claims (App. Br. 12-41).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 21 over Flaugher
and Curtis because the combination of the references does not teach or
suggest the claim term “ primitive” as described in Appellant’s
Specification?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
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 Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. However, as outlined infra, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 21 for emphasis.
We find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly relies on columns 3 and 5 of Flaugher for
Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259

5
disclosing adjusting power in case of power failure (Ans. 17-20). The
relied-on portion of Flaugher describes switching to an auxiliary power
source and connecting the cabinets to this power source (col. 3, ll. 33-51)
based on various factors such as temperature, state of charge, etc. (col. 5, ll.
47-58). Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner has not
equated the act of adjusting the network operation to the claimed primitives,
but has taken the parameters used for adjusting power in case of power
failure as the claimed “primitives.”
Additionally, the Examiner has properly relied on findings related to
the argued features and provided detailed responses to each of Appellant’s
arguments with regard to the other claims (Ans. 25-28), which we adopt as
our own.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the combination of
Flaugher and Curtis teaches or suggests all the claim limitations, the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 21 over Flaugher and
Curtis. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
and 21 and of the remaining claims over various combinations of Howard,
Binder, Caveney, and Gough with Flaugher and Curtis.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-40 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).

Appeal 2009-012207
Application 10/449,259

6

AFFIRMED

ELD