Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these
components for combination in the manner claimed.”).
Moreover, even if Ohsawa were to teach a “wait acknowledge packet” as
claimed, we agree with appellants that the rejection fails to show how the combination
of Chen and Ohsawa would result in the invention. The rejection (Answer at 4) appears
to attribute a “wait acknowledge packet” to Chen, but then asserts that the reference
does not disclose a wait acknowledge packet, or at least the details of the packet as
claimed. The claims, however, require (as set forth by claim 1) “setting a timer for the
first node for receipt of an acknowledgment packet from the second node” and
“resetting the timer if the wait acknowledge packet is received by the first node.” In the
statement of the rejection, however, the “resetting” of the timer is deemed to be taught
by Chen, although the rejection apparently turns to Ohsawa for teaching the details of
the “wait acknowledge packet.” We thus do not see how the references may be
combined such that a timer is set for receipt of an acknowledgment packet from a
second node, but reset upon reception of a packet having claimed functions distinct
from the acknowledgment packet -- i.e., reception of a wait acknowledge packet.
We thus conclude that the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Ohsawa.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007