Appeal 2007-1084
Application 09/764,543
With respect to the arguments set forth beginning at page 4 of the
principal Brief on appeal, we consider independent claim 1 as representative
of the arguments presented here generally referring collectively to claims 1,
7, 10, 16, and 19 through 27 (Brief , top page 4). This grouping of claims
includes independent claims 1, 10, and 19, each of which recites the disputed
reporting and correlation modules. Because we agree with the Examiner’s
responsive views expressed at page 8 of the Answer with respect to the
positions that begin at page 4 of the principal Brief on appeal, we reproduce
them here:
With regard to claims 1, 7, 10, 16, and 19-27, Appellants argue
on page 4, item 1 in the appeal brief, that Nakamura does not disclose
a reporting module configured to query a network infrastructure
device. Appellants argue that the dictionary definition of
‘infrastructure’ is ‘the underlying foundation or basic framework”,
and in using such a definition, Appellant’s ‘network infrastructure
device’ is a device that forms the underlying foundation or basic
framework of a network. Examiner notes the original definition relied
upon by Appellants concerning a ‘network infrastructure device’, (see
Appellants disclosure of the invention, page 13, lines 15-16).
In this passage Appellants define a network infrastructure
device as ‘any intelligent network device including without
limitation a switch, a router, a hub, or the like.’ While the Appellant
states that switches, routers, hubs, and the like may be considered
network infrastructure devices, nowhere is it indicated in the claims,
or in the Appellants disclosure that network infrastructure devices are
limited to devices such as switches, routers, hubs, and the like.
Instead, such devices are merely included in the Appellants definition
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013