Appeal No. 2003-0326
Application No. 09/050,871
Appellants argue that Cowgill and Gundersen fail to teach the
above limitation. See pages 10 and 11 of the brief. Appellants
argue that even if the UUT disclosed in Cowgill were considered
as a plurality of different systems merely based on the use of a
multitude of different signaling protocols, Cowgill specifically
emphasizes at col. 9, lines 48 through 59, that a transparent
generic interface is provided for testing communication network
components in contrast to the “different appropriate interface”
recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants argue that a
different appropriate interface for each of the plurality of
disparate systems as recited in claim 1 is specifically and
intentionally not disclosed or suggested by Cowgill. See page 3
of Appellants Reply Brief.
Upon our review of Cowgill, we find that Cowgill teaches a
system and method for testing telecommunication networks that
employ various signaling protocols. See col. 5, lines 55 through
61 of Cowgill. Cowgill further teaches testing of components
that employ in-band or out-of-band signaling. “[I]n-band” is
defined as use of the same physical path for signaling user
information such as voice, video and data. “[O]ut-of-band”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007