Appeal No. 2001-0530
Application No. 08/828,484
determining at said gateway computer whether said data packet is
addressed to said gateway computer; and
responsive to a positive determination, communicating between
said source host and said gateway computer.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Perlman et al. (Perlman) 5,309,437 May 3, 1994
Okanoue et al (Okanoue) 5,452,292 Sep. 19, 1995
Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Okanoue.1 Claims 9-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okanoue in view of Perlman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Nov. 10, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed Aug. 9, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed Dec. 2, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
1 We note that the rejection is over Okanoue alone, but the examiner has parenthetically cited to
Iwamura and Fukuzawa with respect to claims 1 and 3. This is an improper reliance upon an reference
which has not been properly applied, and we will limit our consideration to Okanoue alone. A similar issue
is present with respect to claim 17 in the combination of Okanoue and Perlman. We will limit our
consideration to the combination of Okanoue and Perlman.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007