Ex Parte Vecoven

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2011

10417812 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FREDERIC LOUIS VECOVEN
____________

Appeal 2009-009733
Application 10/417,812
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-009733
Application 10/417,812

2
Representative Claim
1. A computer system comprising:

a plurality of field replaceable units, wherein each of the field
replaceable units includes a fault recordation unit configured to
record fault information including information identifying first
errors;

a fault association unit including a fault table for relating errors
to one or more of the field replaceable units, and including
hardware configuration information for identifying the
interconnection of the field replaceable units; and

a diagnosis engine configured to search the fault recordation
unit of each of a subset of the field replaceable units to
determine a first error, and wherein the diagnosis engine is
further configured to interact with the fault table and the
hardware configuration information to determine a source of the
first error.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 12-15, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Kleinschnitz (US 5,253,184).
Claims 5-11 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kleinschnitz.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s findings set out in the Final Rejection and
the Answer.

Appeal 2009-009733
Application 10/417,812

3
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “An essential
purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope
be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant
has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage.” Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.

ANALYSIS
Representative claim
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant advances two arguments that we will address in turn.

A computer system comprising . . . a diagnosis engine
Appellant contests the § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 because the
Examiner reads the “diagnosis engine” on test equipment in a “repair depot”
(Kleinschnitz col. 14, ll. 11-19), which is separate from the customer
equipment 40 (Fig. 1), which contains the field replaceable units 70-75
before one or more of the units are transferred to the repair depot.
Appeal 2009-009733
Application 10/417,812

4
We agree with the Examiner that, although Appellant points to
unclaimed details of exemplary embodiments in the Specification, Appellant
has not shown that the disclosure requires that the “diagnosis engine” be
contained within the same housing as the “field replaceable units.” As the
Examiner notes, claim 1 broadly recites a computer “system,” and Appellant
has not provided evidence to demonstrate that one skilled in the art would
interpret a computer “system” to require that all the equipment be in the
same housing or in the same room.

A diagnosis engine configured to . . . determine a first error
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not pointed to
any clear limiting definition in the disclosure (or anywhere in the record) for
the term “first error.” As such, we are not persuaded that the claimed
determining of a “first error” distinguishes over the analyzing of data
indicative of a failure event (Kleinschnitz col. 14, ll. 11-19 and 56-68).
Moreover, claim 1 does not preclude determining a “second,” a “third,” or
any number of additional errors beyond the “first” error.

Conclusion
We are not persuaded that any claim has been rejected in error. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) over
Kleinschnitz.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s determination that claims 1-24 are not
patentable.
Appeal 2009-009733
Application 10/417,812

5
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