Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of Daniels.
2. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of Daniels, and
further in view of Wright.
3. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of
Tennenhouse.
4. Claims 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of
Tennenhouse, and further in view of Daniels.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
Francisco, CA, USA, 05/29/2002 - 05/30/2002, Publication Date: 2002, pp.
2-15 (ISBN: 0-7695-1564-9).
1996 Version (prior art):
David L. Tennenhouse & David J. Wetherall, “Towards an Active Network
Architecture”, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, ACM
Press, New York, N.Y., April 1996, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 5-18 (ISSN:0146-
4833).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013