Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
broadcast might be interpreted to include step (b) (delivery of a
packet to packet destination).” See Brief page 6, lines 18-21.
Appellants argue that Bosack does not teach or suggest step (c)
because “Bosack does not teach or suggest a separate transmission
of the same packet in addition to his broadcast.” See Brief page
7, lines 3-6. In response to the Examiner’s argument that
Bosack’s multiple transmissions of a packet meet steps (b) and
(c), Appellants argue that Bosack’s multiple transmissions would
be conducted “in order to deliver the packet to the packet
destination” and none would be “separate,” as recited in step
(c). See Reply Brief page 2, lines 14-17.
In response to the Appellants’ argument that Bosack does not
teach the step (c) of claim 25, the Examiner, in reference to
Bosack’s Figure 4, argues that Bosack’s packet broadcasting could
anticipate both the limitation “one or more transmissions” in
step (b) and the limitation “a second transmission” in step (c)
of claim 25. See Answer, page 7, lines 1-5. The Examiner
provides an example to explain his position:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007