Appeal 2007-0207
Application 10/054,009
Claims 7, 11 through 20, 22 through 31 and 33 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richards.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and the answer for
the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will
reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9, 10 and 21, and
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 11 through 20, 22 through 31
and 33 through 36.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347,
51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
According to the examiner (Final Rejection 2) Richards describes a
first network element 12, a network diagnostic device 62 and a second
network element 24 (Figure 1).
In Richards, the reference numeral 12 represents a transmitter that
sends a test signal via access panel 20 and transmission path 66 through all
of the networks elements 56, 58 and 60. After the test signal passes through
loop-back panel 20, the test signal passes through all of the network
elements via return path 68 (col. 6, ll. 4-30). The reference numeral 24 is a
communications network that receives test performance data from each of
the network elements 56, 58 and 60 as the test signal passes through each of
the network elements (col. 5, ll. 32-41). The reference numeral 62 is a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013