Appeal No. 2006-0862
Application No. 10/039,928
coupled service pin 304 and which provides node operational status information to the
node configuration controller 310. We fail to see why this status information, such as
node malfunction, unconfigured status, no application loaded (Dolin, column 13, lines
27-30), would not be considered “operational details” of the communication system as
broadly claimed by Appellants.
In view of the above discussion and considering the entirety of the Dolin
reference, since all of the claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Dolin, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, as well claims 2, 3, 6,
and 7 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims
4 and 5, directed to a sample message feature, based on the combination of Dolin and
Lucas. Appellants have not separately argued the limitations in these claims and
instead have relied on arguments made with respect to independent claim 1, which
arguments we found to be unpersuasive for all of the reasons discussed supra.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1-3, 6, and 7, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 5. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective
September 13, 2004).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007