Appeal No. 1999-0353
Application No. 08/368,291
case, that Herh did not suggest the claimed packets, there is no inconsistency with the
instant decision since it is the teaching of Tjahjadi, which provides the suggestion for
such packets in the instant case. While we held in the earlier case that Herh has no need
for the claimed “packets,” we do not find an inconsistency between that case and the
instant case wherein we hold that it would have been obvious to provide for such
packeted information in Herh. This is because the instant claims do not require the same
processing by a local computer as recited in the earlier case. In fact, there is no “local
computer” recited in the instant claims. Moreover, Tjahjadi, not applied in the earlier
case, now provides ample motivation for employing packets in transmitting the
information in Herh. The instant claims do not preclude processing within the modem
itself, unlike the claims in the earlier case which recited a local host computer separate
from the modem and used for processing and for communicating with the remote
computer. Accordingly, while at first blush, these two decisions might appear a bit
inconsistent, in view of the greater breadth of the instant claims and the different
combination of references applied herein, we find no inconsistency.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 but we have not
sustained the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed-in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007