Appeal 2007-2130
Application 10/141,222
Examiner’s focus in the Answer appears to be in the right place, that is, upon
the teachings of Taghadoss’ concepts that are conveyed to the artisan that
are claimed but that which are characterized in the form of different labels.
We see a clear correspondence conceptually from the teachings of the
reference to those that are broadly claimed before us.
Moreover, the network management system demands both physical
and logical network resources to be readily determinable, a capability that
Taghadoss does clearly convey to the user within the concept of network
synchronization as set forth even in the title of the patent to Taghadoss. The
discussion beginning at col. 1, line 25 directly relates to the determination of
usages of network elements within the network in Taghadoss. Even the
broad examples of bandwidth determinations and reliability requirements
directly relate to changes (added/removed structural elements of each nodal
element) as well as the physical and logical relationships among them
generally set forth at column 2.
Based upon these introductory comments in Taghadoss, it is straight
forward to us that the artisan would consider the changes in the physical
consideration of any given node as a change of usage information to the
extent claimed. In this regard, Appellants’ observation at the bottom of page
6 of the Reply Brief that the claimed usage information is clearly
information associated with the use of network resources and not merely
whether a resource has been added/deleted from the network is initially an
admission (because of the use of the words “not merely”) that the added/
deleted monitoring action in Taghadoss clearly relates to usage information
of the typed claimed. It does not appear that Appellants have contested the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013