Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
27. The method of Claim 25 further comprising specifying
which packets are to be delivered to a network monitor, wherein
the specifying step is performed more than once to yield
different specifications of packets to be delivered to a network
monitor.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Bosack 5,088,032 Feb. 11, 1992
Douglas 5,097,469 Mar. 17, 1992
Rejections at Issue
Claims 25-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bosack and Douglas.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief1 and the answer2 for the
details thereof.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claim 25 and 26 and 28-31,
and reverse the rejection of claim 27.
1 Appellants filed an amended Appeal Brief on February 8,
2000. We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the Brief.
Appellants filed a reply brief on July 13, 2000. We will refer
to this reply brief as the Reply Brief.
2
2 The Examiner responded to Appellants’ Appeal Brief on May
11, 2000. We will refer to this answer as simply the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007