Appeal No. 1997-1194
Application No. 08/084,668
regard to dependent claim 8, the Examiner reiterates the
argument concerning Shinohara’s disclosure of “virtual”
circuits discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1,
6, 13.
Appellants have responded to the Examiner’s assertion of
the obviousness of storing state and status information by
reiterating their previous argument concerning Shinohara’s
alleged deficiency in disclosing “virtual” circuits. In
Appellant’s view, since Shinohara lacks any teaching of
“virtual” circuits, no reason can be found for storing state
information or monitoring the status of such circuits.
After reviewing the arguments of Appellant, it is
apparent that, instead of arguing the question of obviousness
with respect to the particulars of dependent claims 4, 5, 8,
and 20, Appellant has based his arguments on the “virtual”
circuit feature recited in parent independent claims 1, 6, and
13. Our earlier discussion on this issue, however, found
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. Despite any
explicit teaching in the Shinohara and Hokari references, we
find the Examiner’s rationale with regard to the obviousness
of the stored state and status information to be reasonable so
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007