Appeal No. 2003-0481
Application No. 09/222,388
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kotchey and Terry.1
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs2
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1 through
7. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant argues on page 7 of the brief that claim 1 contains the limitation of
“initiating a passive listener to locate an IPX packet” and that nether Kotchey or Terry
teach this limitation.
1 The answer, on page 3, identifies that the rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph has been withdrawn.
2This decision is based upon the Appeal Brief received August 12, 2002 (certified as being mailed on
August 5, 2002 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.8(a)) and the Reply Brief received November 18, 2002
(certified as being mailed on November 12, 2002 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.8(a)).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007