Appeal No. 2002-1138
Application No. 09/362,785
Further, we note that appellants’ specification (p. 9, ll. 20-23) relates that the cable
modem includes a “signal measurement circuit 225” that is “coupled to the upstream
side of the cable network 120 through interface 228...” In view of appellants’ Figure 1,
however, cable modem 100 is not directly “coupled” to cable network 120.
In any event, instant claim 1 does not use the term “coupled,” regardless of
whether the term might relate to direct or indirect connections. The claim recites “a
signal measurement circuit responsive to the upstream side of the cable network.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms, in light of this record, we fail
to see how the claim requires the alleged distinguishing feature argued by appellants.
In particular, the claim does not require that the signal measurement circuit be part of,
or directly connected to, the cable network. The claim requires, instead, that the circuit
be responsive to communications directed toward the cable network.
As pointed out by the examiner, Sanders discloses a cable access unit 106
having circuitry responsive to communications directed toward a cable communication
network (e.g., col. 3, ll. 1-45). We agree that the physical connections are different from
those of appellants’ disclosed invention. Instant claim 1, however, does not distinguish
over Sanders’ physical connections.
Appellants also appear to take issue with the examiner’s reading of the “self-
testing cable modem” on the combination of Sanders’ modem 202 and cable access
unit 106. (Reply Brief at 2-3; Answer at 3.)
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007