Appeal No. 2006-1597
Application No. 09/218,822
attention (Answer, pages 4 and 5) to various portions of columns 2, 5, 8, 9, and 12 of Riggins as
well as the illustration in Riggins’ Figure 2.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how each of
the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Riggins so as to establish a case of
anticipation. In particular, Appellants contend (Brief, pages 16 and 17; Reply Brief, pages 3 and
4)) that, in contrast to the claimed invention, Riggins does not disclose a media manager which
adjusts bandwidth and multicast address assignments as well as exports interfaces for configuring
the system to receive telemetry data.
After reviewing the Riggins reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in
general agreement with Appellants’ position, as stated in the Briefs, that the Examiner has never
attempted to show how each of the claim limitations is suggested by the teachings of the applied
prior art. In particular, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has made no attempt at
addressing the specific language of the claims. For example, while the Examiner points to the
portions of Riggins at column 2, line 45 through column 3, line 43, column 4, lines 6-67, and
column 6, lines 13-34 and the collection station 17, we find no disclosure which corresponds to
the claimed bandwidth management, multicast address assignment, and interface exporting
operations. It is further our view that, to whatever extent the Examiner is suggesting that the
operations associated with the claimed media manager are “inherent” in the system of Riggins,
any suggestion of inherency with regard to the existence of these operations in Riggins is simply
not supported by any disclosure in the Riggins reference. To establish inherency, evidence must
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007