Appeal 2007-2081
Application 09/859,856
language Appellants use in the Specification to define "configuration logic."
Appellants contend (Br. 6) that Adolfsson's NEIOD (or primary device) fails
to collect configuration logic for itself and (Br. 8) that Adolfsson fails to
generate a user interface for selecting and returning configuration settings
for the NEIOD (or primary device). The issue, thus, is whether the creation
of table 3214 in Adolfsson constitutes collecting configuration logic for the
NEIOD (or primary device) and returning configuration settings for the
NEIOD.
Adolfsson discloses (col. 3, ll. 4-32) that the NEIOD is a network
server which receives data from and transmits data to the data providing
means (the elements that the Examiner correlates with the claimed
secondary devices). Further, node 3104 processes data transmitted by the
NEIOD and presents data on a screen for controlling a data providing means.
Adolfsson discloses (col. 5, ll. 13-20) that the NEIOD stores a table 3214 of
"information regarding the data providing means 3204-3210 that it is
handling." The information in the table is at best configuration logic for the
secondary devices, as we find no suggestion in Adolfsson that the
information relates to configuration settings for the NEIOD. In fact, we find
no mention in Adolfsson about configuring the NEIOD. Since Adolfsson
fails to teach each and every element of independent claim 1, Adolfsson
cannot anticipate claim 1. Further, since each of the remaining independent
claims, 7, 12, 18, and 24, includes language similar to that of claim 1, we
will not sustain the anticipation rejection of any of claims 1, 7, 12, 18, 24,
nor their dependents, claims 2 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 through 17, 19 through
23, and 25 through 34.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013