Appeal 2007-1084
Application 09/764,543
of a network infrastructure device, which Appellant broadly defines as
‘any intelligent network device’.
Appellants’ reference at Specification page 13, as noted by the
Examiner, includes and is consistent with the discussion at Specification
page 1, lines 23 through 25 in a corresponding manner as describing the
nature of the prior art. We agree with the Examiner’s emphases upon the
characterization as being descriptive of “any” intelligent network device and
further modifying it with the language “without limitation”. Appellants also
characterize infrastructure devices being any of the listed items as well as
“or the like.”
Contrary to the views expressed in the principal Brief on appeal, all
this amounts to an expansive definition of network infrastructure devices
rather than a narrow definition of the term which Appellants appear to rely
upon for patentability. Correspondingly, we further agree with the
Examiner’s views expressed at page 9 of the Answer which we reproduce
here:
Nevertheless, if Examiner is to utilize the dictionary definition
of the term “infrastructure” submitted by Appellants, Examiner
submits Nakamura further teaches such devices. Nakamura teaches
outlets (101) as infrastructure devices, (col. 17, lines 33-35). These
devices form the underlying foundation or basic framework of the
network disclosed by Nakamura. The outlets taught by Nakamura are
like switches, routers, and hubs since they relay data transmitted by
devices located throughout the network, (col. 4, lines 24-35).
Henceforth, it is clear Nakamura teaches a reporting module
configured to query a network infrastructure device as claimed by the
Appellant, (col. 2, lines 44-46, and col. 18, lines 39-45).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013