11391669 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2010)

Ex Parte Vergnaud et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 22, 2010

11391669 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte GERARD VERGNAUD, LUC ATTIMONT, JANNICK BODIN, RAYMOND GASS, and JEAN-CLAUDE LAVILLE ____________ Appeal 2009-008939 Application 11/391,6691 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: March 22, 2010 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge, and FRED E. MCKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request that we reconsider our decision of October 13, 2009 (“Decision”) where we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the Katzenberg reference. 1 This application seeks reissue of U.S. Patent 6,715,087 which is based on Application 09/703,654, filed November 2, 2000. Appeal 2009-008939 Application 11/391,669 2 We have reconsidered our decision in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Request for Rehearing (“Request”), but we decline to change the decision for the following reasons. Appellants contend that our decision is erroneous since Katzenberg allegedly does not detect the presence of a remote terminal that can receive a remote power feed by detecting the presence of a predetermined impedance as claimed. Request, at 3. Notably, Appellants admit that measuring the resulting voltage drop by sending a voltage or current to a remote terminal with a purely passive termination would indicate impedance. Id. (emphasis added). But Appellants maintain that Katzenberg’s sawtooth waveform— the only waveform that is said to indicate the presence of a remote terminal capable of receiving a remote power feed—does not indicate impedance, but rather operation of an active device at the other end of the line. Request, at 3-4. We disagree. Although Katzenberg’s sawtooth waveform indicates the presence of a DC-DC switching supply by virtue of a varying voltage drop as we indicated in our decision (Decision, at 13), this sawtooth waveform is nevertheless a measured voltage drop—a drop that would involve the presence of some associated impedance in the remote terminal to realize this drop. Apart from conclusory assertions (Request, at 3-4), Appellants have simply failed to provide evidence on this record proving that the measured voltage drop resulting from Katzenberg’s DC-DC switching supply does not involve detecting the presence of some predetermined impedance in the remote terminal as claimed. For this reason alone, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2009-008939 Application 11/391,669 3 We also noted in our decision that nothing in the claims precludes using Katzenberg’s other non-varying voltage drop detections (i.e., no voltage drop or a fixed voltage drop) as detecting the presence of a predetermined impedance in the remote terminal, and therefore indicate its ability to receive a remote power feed. Decision, at 13-14 (emphasis added). Notably, Appellants do not dispute that at least the fixed voltage drop would indicate impedance. See Request, at 3 (admitting that measuring the resulting voltage drop by sending a voltage or current to a remote terminal with a purely passive termination would indicate impedance). In any event, while Katzenberg’s non-varying voltage drops (i.e., fixed and none) would indicate that the remote equipment was unable to receive a remote power feed (Decision, at 13), that information nevertheless would detect the presence of a remote terminal adapted to receive such a feed—namely no presence of such a terminal. We therefore remain unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection or in our decision affirming that rejection. CONCLUSION We have granted Appellants’ request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision of October 13, 2009, but we deny the request with respect to making any changes therein. Appeal 2009-008939 Application 11/391,669 4 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) (2009). REHEARING DENIED pgc SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037