Appeal 2007-2081
Application 09/859,856
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse both the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 7, 12, and 18 and also the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 34.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that the word "that" in each of
independent claims 1, 7, 12, and 18 lacks antecedent basis. Appellants
contend (Br. 15-16) that the phrase "each device," prior to the word "that" in
the claims provides sufficient antecedent basis. The first issue, therefore, is
whether there is antecedent basis for the word "that" in each of claims 1, 7,
12, and 18.
Claim 1, in pertinent part, recites "the configuration logic for each
device including information … for configuring that device." For any given
device, the configuration logic includes information for configuring the
given device. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the word "that" refers to
"each device." Consequently, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
7, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner (Answer 3-8) further rejects claims 1 through 9 and 11
through 34 as anticipated by Adolfsson. The Examiner asserts (Answer 9)
that Adolfsson's NEIOD (the element that the Examiner correlates with the
claimed primary device) "collects configuration logic for itself by creating
table 3214. The table is created by searching for data providing means
(secondary devices) that the NEIOD is handling or are connected to." The
Examiner continues (Answer 9) that "the data on the table is information
used to generate a user interface for configuring a network device," the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013