Ex Parte Rover et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 22, 2011

10611596 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEREMY L. ROVER and AMBER D. SISTLA
____________

Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-22 and 39-43, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the field of networks and, in
particular, to a system and method for describing network components and
their associations. Spec. ¶ [0002].

Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving a description of a network component; and
placing at least a portion of the received description into one
of a plurality of sections of an electronic list of network
components, each of the plurality of sections having a standard
format, wherein each of the plurality of sections corresponds to a
capability of a network component, and further wherein the
electronic list of network components includes
a dynamic network device section to contain a
description of one or more network components that can be
moved from one location on a network to another location,
a non-dynamic network device section to contain a
description of one or more network components having a static
IP address, and
a power management section to contain a description of
one or more power management modules to programmatically
apply power to a network component.

Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-19 and 39-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Champagne (US 7,188,160 B2).
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Champagne and Gai (US 6,697,360 B1).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is
not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information
content of a memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of
information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d
1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003)
aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI
2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects instant claim 1 under § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Champagne. Appellants respond that the reference’s
description of a network device saving configuration information in non-
volatile storage (Champagne col. 3, l. 61 - col. 4, l. 18) does not “teach or
Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596

4
suggest” receiving a description of a network component as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 8-9.1
The Examiner responds in turn that claim 1 is broadly interpreted
because there are no details with respect to how the “receiving” is actually
performed. Ans. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation,
and add that claim 1 does not specify what might send and what might
receive the “description.” We are thus not persuaded that the claim
distinguishes over the non-volatile storage (local memory) receiving the
data.
The Examiner further finds that the configuration information file as
described by Champagne at column 6, line 38 et seq. corresponds to the
claimed “electronic list of network components.” Appellants submit an
alternative view.
[T]he cited passages merely describe an example of a
configuration file. They do not, however, teach or suggest
“placing at least a portion of the received description into . . . an
electronic list of network components . . . wherein each of the
plurality of sections corresponds to a capability of a network
component . . . the . . . list include[ing] a dynamic network
device section . . . a non-dynamic network device section . . .
and a power management section,” as recited in claims 1 and
39.

App. Br. 10
Appellants’ arguments, however, rely on the informational content of
non-functional descriptive material. That is, the details of what the

1 Although the body of the § 102(e) statement of the rejection in the Final
Rejection wrongly refers to “Gai,” Appellants understood that Champagne
was the reference applied.
Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596

5
electronic list is to include is not entitled to weight in the analysis of the
claim with respect to the prior art. Further, what a section may be deemed to
“correspond” to is not entitled to patentable weight. The data that is deemed
to be representative of sections that describe network components or
modules does not change the underlying functionality or utility of the
method of claim 1. The steps of “receiving” and “placing” data is the same
regardless of the deemed informational content of the data. Further, placing
the data into “sections” of an “electronic list” does not modify the
underlying structure or function of any electronic memory or hardware that
might be implicated by claim 1.2
Champagne describes the configuration information file as including
lists of things such as the slots and ports of the device. Col. 6, ll. 38-51.
Champagne’s description relating to the configuration information file is
sufficient to show anticipation of the manipulation of a mere arrangement of
data consistent with the actual requirements of claim 1.
We therefore sustain the § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, being not
persuaded of error in the rejection. Claims 2-19 and 39-43, not separately
argued, fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We also sustain
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 20-22, as Appellants rely on the supposed
deficiency of base claim 1 with respect to Champagne.

2 Similarly, the informational content of the data received and placed in the
context of system claim 39 does not modify the underlying structure or
function of any of the electronic memory or other hardware components that
may comprise the system.
Appeal 2009-010850
Application 10/611,596

6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s determination that claims 1-22 and 39-43
are not patentable.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw