Ex Parte Ozaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2015

11687924 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2015)

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.
11/687,924 03/19/2007 Hirokazu Ozaki 04870013AA 9108
30743 7590 02/05/2015
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD
SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
CLAWSON, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2015 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 HIROKAZU OZAKI1
________________

Appeal 2012–003694
Application 11/687,924
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest NEC Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1–17. Specifically, claims 1,
3–8, 11, and 15–172 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Rose et al. (US 2009/0323518 A1,
Dec. 31, 2009) (“Rose”) and Zadikian et al. (US 7,349,326 B1, March 25,
2008) (“Zadikian”).
Claims 9, 10, and 12–14 stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rose,
Zadikian, and Deval et al. (US 2004/0264384 A1, Dec. 30, 2004) (“Deval”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to an emergency call management
apparatus and a mobile station. The emergency call management apparatus
monitors the emergency call generation rate, which is indicative of the rate
of generation of emergency calls in a network, and on the basis of the result
of this monitoring, transmits state information indicative of the restriction
state of communication in that network, when the emergency call generation

2 The Examiner rejected claim 2 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rose and Zadikian. Non-
Final Rej. 5. Appellant does not list this claim in the Grounds of Rejection
to be Reviewed on Appeal. App. Br. 31. However, Appellant argues this
claim together with claim 1, and makes no separate argument for it. App.
Br. 35. We consequently review this claim together with claims 1–8, 11, and
15–17.
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

3
rate attains a preset condition. The mobile station has emergency number
information indicative of a number to be dialed to make an emergency call,
and transmits, on the basis of the emergency number information and the
received state information, a connection request to the network when the
restriction state is a state in which only that emergency call is accepted and
the number that has been dialed is the number to be dialed to make that
emergency call. This provides a higher probability that an emergency call
will be processed in situations in which there is a high rate of generation of
emergency calls. This is because in such situations the network only has to
process emergency calls. Abstract.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Because Appellant makes essentially the same arguments for claims
1–8, 11, and 15–17, we select claim 1 as representative of the claims on
appeal. App. Br. 35–42. Claim 1 recites:
1. A failure recovery method in a node in a network,
comprising the steps of:

ascertaining by a tree information managing unit tree
information of the network by acquiring the tree information
from another node or computing the tree information;

extracting by an extracting unit in advance a set of nodes
from all nodes in the network as a range affected by link failure,
based on the ascertained tree information, each node of the set
of nodes including incoming and outgoing links of the node as
part of a tree;

notifying by a failure response unit, when link failure is
detected on a link in the network, only the affected area in the
network that link failure has been detected; and

Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

4
recomputing by a path computing unit a path when link
failure is detected by the node or when the notification is
received from another node.
App. Br. 46.
Appellant selects dependent claim 9 as representative of claims 9, 10,
and 12–14. App. Br. 42. Claim 9 recites:
9. The failure recovery method according to claim 1, further
comprising the steps of:

distributing by the tree information managing unit the
tree information of the node to other nodes and receiving by the
tree information managing unit tree information from other
nodes;

if received tree information needs to be forwarded,
forwarding by the tree information managing unit tree
information to other nodes;

when it has been possible to acquire tree information for
all nodes, extracting link-sharing nodes by the link-sharing
node extracting unit;

when a change in the link state is detected by the failure
response unit or a notification packet is received by tree
information managing unit, recomputing by the path computing
unit the tree relating to the node;

updating by the path recomputing unit a routing table and
a forwarding table; and

if the node detected the failure, creating by the failure
response unit a packet notifying failure detection and sending
the created packet to link-sharing nodes;

whereby a range, as a set of related nodes, affected by
link failure is extracted in advance, and then immediately a path
is computed when link failure is detected and the affected range
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

5
is notified, together with paths being recomputed at the
notification destinations.
App. Br. 48–49.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that cited prior art
reference Rose is directed to addressing failure recovery methods for a node
in a mesh network, e.g., large scale networks such as the Internet. Appellant
also argues that Rose fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1
reciting “extracting ... a set of nodes ... as a range affected by link failure”
and “ascertaining by a tree information managing unit tree information of
the network by acquiring the tree information from another node or
computing the tree information.” App. Br. 35–36.

Analysis
Appellant argues that, because Rose is directed to a ring network,
rather than a mesh network, Rose does not teach a process or component for
notifying “only the affected area in the network that link failure has been
detected.” App. Br. 35 (emphasis in original). Appellant admits that Rose
teaches structural components and processes for “extracting ... a set of nodes
... as a range affected by the link failure.” Id. Appellant also contends that
Rose teaches that when a link failure in the ring occurs (e.g., between Bridge
101 and 107 in Figures 1a and 1b), the neighboring bridge resets the
direction around the ring at the adjacent bridge. Id. (also citing Rose ¶¶ 42–
43) (“Bridge 106 forwards the RRSTP BPDU-B at high speed by hardware
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

6
toward the RRSTP port of Bridge 105 that defines the forward direction and
the CPU drops RRSTP BPDU-B”). However, Appellant argues, the cited
passage and figures of Rose are unrelated to the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“extracting ... a set of nodes ... as a range affected by a link failure where
each node in the set has incoming and outgoing links as part of a tree; or
notifying only nodes in an affected area when a failure occurs, and
recomputing a path after a notification is received.” Id. Rather, argues
Appellant, Rose only teaches resetting the direction around the ring once a
failure occurs, and the resetting occurs at Bridges which are adjacent to the
Bridge next to the link. Id.
Furthermore, argues Appellant, Rose does not teach or suggest the
other structural elements and steps of the invention. App. Br. 36. Appellant
contends, by way of example, that tree information is not “ascertained” by a
managing unit by acquiring it from another node or by computing it in Rose.
Id. Rather, contends Appellant, Rose teaches that there is a forward and
backward direction to the bridge units in the ring network. Id. (citing Rose,
¶ 41). Appellant contends Rose does not teach “recomputing,” instead the
direction around the ring network can be changed in Rose, but no pathway
would be recomputed. Id. (citing Rose ¶¶ 42-43).
The Examiner responds that claim 1 neither recites nor requires “a
mesh network,” and that Appellant therefore cannot allege that the claimed
invention is limited to such network. Ans. 21. The Examiner also states
that, because the claim term “network” is not explicitly defined in
Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner can adopt the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language that is consistent with the Specification.
Id. at 22 (citing MPEP § 2111). The Examiner finds that limiting the type of
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

7
network to a mesh type network is inconsistent with the broad language of
the claims. Id.
The Examiner also finds that Appellant’s claims do not recite or
require structural components and processes for “extraction ... a set of nodes
... as a range affected by the link failure,” as Appellant argues. Ans. 22.
Rather, finds the Examiner, the structural elements of Appellant’s invention
are only software algorithms which are performed with a processor and
memory: no circuit board is disclosed in Appellant’s Specification; only a
process (or steps). Id. (citing Spec., Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that Rose
explicitly teaches the steps performed by nodes within the network, and that
Rose further teaches that these processes may be stored on computer
readable medium (i.e., memory) and executed or carried out. Id. (citing
Rose, ¶ 52).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 recites neither a “mesh network” nor “large scale
networks such as the Internet.” Rather, claim 1 recites merely “a network”
without further characterization. Nor is there an explicit definition of the
claim term “network” in Appellant’s Specification. The Examiner may
therefore permissibly adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim term “network” that is consistent with the Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore
conclude that the Examiner correctly interpreted the claim term “network”
broadly enough to include those networks taught or suggested by the cited
prior art references.
We also agree with the Examiner that neither claim 1 nor Appellant’s
Specification recite or require physical structural components and processes
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

8
for “extract[ing] ... a set of nodes ... as a range affected by the link failure.”
Indeed, Appellant mischaracterizes the Examiner’s findings: the Examiner
does not rely on Rose for teaching this limitation, but rather relies upon
Zadikian. See Ans. 5. Nevertheless, we agree with Examiner that Rose (and
also Zadikian) teach a series of software algorithms or processes that may be
stored on non-volatile memory in the processor. See, e.g., Rose, ¶ 52
(“Referring now to computer readable medium (e.g., software), it will be
understood from the disclosures made herein that methods, processes and/or
operations adapted for carrying out RRSTP functionality as disclosed herein
are tangibly embodied by computer readable medium having instructions
thereon for carrying out such functionality”).
Furthermore, the Examiner found that the passages of Rose supporting
the limitation reciting “ascertaining by a tree information managing unit tree
information of the network by acquiring the tree information from another
node or computing the tree information” are in paragraphs 3 and 4, which
teaches that “Spanning Tree Protocol (STP), Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol
(RSTP) and Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP)” are well-known in
the prior art. Ans. 5 (quoting Rose, ¶ 3). Rose further teaches
A particular process a spanning tree protocol performs
when a change in topology occurs is referred to as convergence
calculation, convergence or re-convergence. Examples of such
topology changes include, but may not be limited to, a link
failing and a bridge or bridge port being added to the topology.
Such a convergence process comprises computing a new
spanning tree from a root bridge to all bridges and designating
some bridge ports as “forwarding” or “discarding.”

Rose, ¶ 4; Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize from these teachings of Rose that a spanning
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

9
tree protocol ascertains and acquires tree information from the nodes of the
network and computes tree information.
Appellant replies that although they acknowledge that Spanning Tree
Protocols exist, the network architecture disclosed by Rose possesses a ring
architecture, and Rose does not contemplate any step or structure which
involves a network architecture that can be described by tree information.
Reply Br. 3. Appellant therefore contends that Rose does not teach
“ascertaining by a tree information managing unit tree information of the
network.” Id. But, as we have related, Rose is cited as teaching that
Spanning Tree Protocols are well-known in the art and are not specifically
restricted to ring networksWe consequently find that the Examiner did not
err in finding that the cited prior art references teach the disputed limitation.

Issue 2
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
teachings of Zadikian are relevant to a large-scale mesh network, such as the
Internet, and are therefore inapplicable to the limitations and purpose of
claim 1. App. Br. 37.

Analysis
Appellant argues that Zadikian discloses control of inter-zone/intra-
zone recovery using in-band communications, and that the system of
Zadikian is based on a zoned network architecture. App. Br. 36 (citing
Zadikian, Fig. 3). Appellant quotes an extended passage from Zadikian in
support of the argument that Zadikian teaches an architecture which cannot
be applied to large-scale networks, such as the Internet. Id. at 37.
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

10
According to Appellant, the zoned network architecture of Zadikian is, by
definition, pre-defined; the nodes and connections within a zone are known
and the interconnections between zones are known. Id. at 37–38.
The Examiner responds that Zadikian explicitly teaches “... the
present invention is not limited to the Internet or any particular network-
based environment ….” Ans. 23 (quoting Zadikian col. 15, ll. 48–51). The
Examiner finds Zadikian teaches that its invention has far-reaching
applications that both include the Internet and go beyond the Internet to
other types of networks. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Zadikian teaches:
Computer system 810, client system 820 and client system 830
are able to access information on server 840 using, for example,
a web browser (not shown). Such a web browser allows
computer system 810, as well as client systems 820 and 830, to
access data on server 840 representing the pages of a website
hosted on server 840. Protocols for exchanging data via the
Internet are well known to those skilled in the art. Although
FIG. 8 depicts the use of the Internet for exchanging data, the
present invention is not limited to the Internet or any particular
network-based environment.

Zadikian col. 15, ll. 41–51. Appellant replies that all Zadikian suggests is
that their zoned architecture, which is the basis of their inter-zone/intra-zone
recovery process, can be used in an environment which might include the
Internet, presumably a private zoned network interconnected in some
fashion by a public network, such as the Internet. Reply Br. 3. However,
argues Appellant, Zadikian does not describe how this might be
accomplished. Id. Appellant repeats the position that the zoned network
architecture of Zadikian is not applicable to a large-scale, highly complex
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

11
system in which physical characteristics of connections vary widely and
dynamically, such as the Internet. Id.
As we have related supra, the term “large scale network” does not
appear in the language of the independent claims, nor does the term
“Internet.”3 Although claims are read in light of the Specification, Appellant
may not attempt to import limitations from the Specification into the claim.
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005). Moreover, given the explicit teachings of Zadikian, we concur with
the Examiner that, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the
teachings of Zadikian discloses a technique that is applicable to the Internet
as well as other networks. Id.

Issue 3
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Zadikian
teaches ascertaining “by a tree information managing unit[,] tree information
of the network by acquiring the tree information from another node or
computing the tree information.” App. Br. 38.

Analysis
Appellant fails to properly address the Examiner’s findings. Rose, not
Zadikian, is the cited prior art reference that the Examiner finds teaches this
limitation of claim 1. See Ans. 5. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by

3 Dependent claim 14 is the sole claim with a limitation reciting the claim
term “Internet.” Claim 14 recites: “The node according to claim 13, wherein
the network is the Internet.” However, as we relate in this analysis, we agree
with the Examiner that Zadikian explicitly teaches this limitation.
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

12
attacking references individually where … the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (C.C.P.A.
1981) (citing Application of Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757 (C.C.P.A. 1968). We
have also related supra why we agree with the Examiner that an artisan of
ordinary skill would understand that Rose teaches this limitation. We
therefore uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in this respect.

Issue 4
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Zadikian
teaches extracting, by an extracting unit, “in advance a set of nodes from all
nodes in the network as a range affected by link failure, based on ascertained
tree information, each node of the set of nodes including incoming and
outgoing links of the node as part of a tree” App. Br. 40 (emphasis in
original).

Analysis
Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in either
Zadikian or Rose of an extracting unit. App. Br. 40. Appellant also argues
that claim 1 further requires a failure response unit which notifies, “when
link failure is detected on a link in the network, only the affected area in the
network that link failure has been detected.” Id. According to Appellant,
Zadikian teaches both a flooding mechanism (intra-zone) and a pre-planned
database (inter-zone). Id. Appellant also argues that claim 1 requires a path
computing unit for “recomputing by a path … when link failure is detected
by the node or when the notification is received from another node.” Id.
Appellant contends that, since Zadikian employs both a flooding mechanism
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

13
(intra-zone) and a pre-planned database (inter-zone), there is no reason to
recompute a path when link failure is detected. Id.
The Examiner responds that Rose discloses “each node of the set of
nodes[,] including incoming and outgoing links of the node as part of a tree.”
Ans. 24 (citing Rose, ¶ 20) (incoming and outgoing links are part of the
executed Spanning Tree Protocol, which transmits data in opposite
directions (i.e., it is part of the tree)). Id.
The Examiner also finds that Zadikian teaches extracting, by an
extracting unit in advance, a set of nodes from all nodes in the network as a
range affected by link failure, based on the ascertained topology
information. Ans. 24. The Examiner points to Figure 3 of Zadikian, which
depicts zones 1, 2, and backbone zone and finds that the zones define a set of
nodes as a range. Id. The Examiner finds that Zadikian teaches that there is
no flooding between zones, but only within a zone, i.e., a range affected by a
link failure. Id. (citing Zadikian, col. 5, ll. 38–41). The Examiner also finds
that Zadikian teaches notifying by a failure response unit when a link failure
is detected on a link in the network, only the affected area in the network
that link failure has been detected. Id. In this respect, the Examiner finds
that Zadikian teaches that the negative response (i.e., notification of failure)
is propagated throughout the zone (i.e., the affected area). Id. at 25 (citing
Zadikian, col. 5, lines 38–41). In other words, the Examiner finds Zadikian
teaches that a zone is predetermined and, when a failure occurs, the zone is
flooded. Id.; see also Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that these teachings
correspond to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Id.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. As an initial matter,
we find, as the Examiner also found supra, that Appellant’s Specification
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

14
does not disclose a “link-sharing node extracting unit” as a physical
structure. Rather, the extracting unit is incorporated into a “routing protocol
1,” which we interpret as part of the coded software routine. See Spec. 9.
Since Appellant provides no explicit definition of the extracting unit, we
give the term the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification.
We agree with the Examiner that a “zone of predetermined sets of
nodes affected by a failure,” as taught by Zadikian, corresponds to “a node
set as a range affected by link failure” as defined in claim 1. See Ans. 5-6.
Moreover, we have related supra our reasoning why Rose teaches
“ascertained topology information, and the node set including incoming and
outgoing links of the node as part of a tree,” viz., Rose teaches a Spanning
Tree Protocol which ascertains and acquires tree information from the nodes
of the network and computes tree information, including, necessarily,
incoming and outgoing links.
With respect to the limitation reciting for “recomputing by a path
…when link failure is detected by the node or when the notification is
received from another node,” we find that Zadikian teaches:
In certain implementations, the WaRPTM protocol allows
a single inter-zone failure to be restored within 50 milliseconds
(ms) or less. In one embodiment, timely restoration (within 50
ms) during a second inter-zone failure can be affected by the
WaRPTM protocol algorithm using information contained in the
topology database of the backbone zone, or in this example
Zone 0, to compute new inter-zone routes for the failed VPs.
Source routed packets are used to request and establish the new
routes.

Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

15
Zadikian, col. 5, ll. 14–20 (emphasis added). We find that Zadikian thus
teaches that, when a link (route, see Fig. 3) failure is detected, the system
computes new interzone links (recomputes a path) and that Zadikian
therefore teaches the disputed limitation. Moreover, we note that Appellant
directly quotes this teaching of Zadikian in their Appeal Brief. App. Br. 39.
Therefore, because we are unpersuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s
contentions of error for the reasons supra, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.

B. Claim 9
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Deval teaches
or suggests the limitation of claim 9 reciting “updating by a path
recomputing unit, a routing table and a forwarding table.” App. Br. 42.

Analysis
Appellant argues that the only similarity in Deval to Appellant’s
claimed invention are the words “routing table” and “forwarding table.”
App. Br. 42. According to Appellant, Deval teaches a route management
system for avoiding routing errors of packets in a manner to maintain
routing coherency. Id. Appellant maintains that these teachings have
nothing to do with either the Rose or Zadikian systems, or the claimed
invention. Id.
Appellant has previously argued that neither Zadikian nor Rose
requires a path recomputing unit and, Appellant argues, it therefore follows
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

16
that there would be no requirement in the Rose/Zadikian system for either a
“routing table” or a “forwarding table.” App. Br. 43.
The Examiner responds that Deval was used for the limited purpose of
teaching, explicitly, the use of a layer 3 (i.e., IP) in a routing table. Ans. 25
(citing Deval, ¶ 25). Rose explicitly teaches using a layer 2 forwarding table
but does not explicitly disclose a routing table which is used at layer 3. Id.;
see also Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that Deval was cited for the purpose
of explaining what was well-known in the art at the time of invention (i.e.,
OSI level 3/4 routing) and, also, as teaching the sending of data outside of a
zone. Id. The Examiner finds that Deval thus teaches smaller forwarding
tables, using known methods that yield predictable results. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant makes the
conclusory statement that the teachings of Deval have “nothing to do” with
either the Rose or Zadikian systems, or the claimed invention. App. Br. 42.
That is not the proper test for obviousness. Rather:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.

In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Appellant has provided
insufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the rejection fails to satisfy
the required obviousness criterion.
The Examiner cites Deval for the limited purpose of teaching the use
of a layer 3 (i.e., IP) in a routing table. Ans. 25 (citing Deval, ¶ 25).
Paragraph 25 of Deval teaches:
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

17
A RIB update may be transmitted from route management
component 208 to forwarding engine 216 in the form of an
updated routing table, whereas a FIB update may be transmitted
from route management component 208 to the forwarding
engine in the form of an updated forwarding table. As data is
received by router 200, the data may be transmitted to another
FE pursuant to the rules set forth in the forwarding table (FIB)
220 or to an external network component pursuant to the rules
set forth in the routing table (or RIB) 222.

Deval, ¶ 25.
The Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the
method of Rose, in view of Zadikian, to include updating a routing table, as
taught by Deval, to permit the sending of data outside of a zone and, further,
to allow for smaller forwarding tables, thereby using known methods that
yield predictable results. Ans. 9. We consequently find that the Examiner
has “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). Appellant’s conclusory statement is insufficient to
overcome the Examiner’s reasoning.
With respect to Appellant’s other arguments concerning the teachings
of Rose and Zadikian, we have addressed those same arguments with respect
to claim 1 supra, and our reasoning is equally applicable to claim 9. In
particular, Appellant argues that the teachings of Zadikian do not teach
limitations of claim 9 that the Examiner expressly found were taught by
Rose. See Ans. 8–9, 26; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We
consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Appeal 2012-003694
Application 11/687,924

18
Finally, as we have noted supra, in a number of instances in the
Appeal Brief, Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s
findings; viz., Appellant mischaracterizes the findings of the Examiner by
arguing that a cited prior art reference fails to teach the limitation in
question, when in fact, the Examiner found that it was another prior art
reference that teaches or suggests that limitation. See, e.g., App. Br. 35, 38,
42. We caution Appellant that such repeated misattributions are not optimal
practice before the Board.

DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–17 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) 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).

AFFIRMED

bar