Appeal 2007-1724
Application 10/284,347
Specification merely provides “examples” of devices and that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “device” is sufficient. Here, the Examiner finds
the “segments” of a system, as taught by Engel, would have read on the term
“device” as recited in independent claim 1 (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not set forth an
explicit definition in the Specification and that Appellant’s Specification
merely sets forth exemplary embodiments to a wide range of system
elements. Therefore, we do not find that the Examiner has erred in the
interpretation of the instant claim language.
Additionally, Appellant maintains that Engel fails to disclose
"receiving from a user a request for performance data for one or more
devices in the network" and furthermore that the "request includes one or
more input parameters specified by a user." Appellant maintains that there
is no evidence in the record that Engel, Gillis, or Rakoshitz discloses the
recited limitation. The Examiner maintains that Engel discloses the request
including input parameters and that the limitation would be “inherent” for
the computer to be able to understand the user’s request and provide
appropriate data (Answer 12-13). We agree with the Examiner that Engel
teaches the use or input request includes one or more input parameters
specified by the user since the performance statistics for the network and its
components and segments would have been variable depending upon the
system in which it is implemented. Therefore, those skilled in the art would
have realized or appreciated that there would have been a need for an input
or selection (Engel, column 3-4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013