Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 Stevens is relied on by the Examiner to show the details of
2 conventional TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet protocol) and
3 does not make up for the deficiencies of the Abraham as discussed above.
4 The Anticipation Rejection of
5 Claims 1, 4, 9 and 15 over Cirasole
6
7 As in the case of the rejection of claims for anticipation over
8 Abraham, with regard to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9 and 15 as anticipated
9 by Cirasole, the Examiner has failed to establish that Cirasole discloses (1)
10 assembling of data packets to form a multi-packet communication to which
11 is applied the access rules or to the acquired information content of which is
12 applied the access rules, and (2) the “non-intrusive” aspect of the receiving
13 or intercepting, identifying, assembling, and applying or matching functions
14 which have been claimed in independent claims 1 and 15. The Examiner
15 cites to Cirasole, col. 5, lines 20-23 as disclosing the applying of access
16 rules, but nowhere explains how or why the access rules would be applied to
17 an assembled multi-packet communication as is required by the rejected
18 claims. The portion cited does not reveal that any access rule is applied to
19 an assembled multi-packet communication. Rather, it appears that access
20 rules are applied on a packet by packet basis. Col. 5, lines 15-23 of Cirasole
21 are reproduced below:
22 The ISP server 100 then monitors all data packets
23 to determine which will be forwarded to users on this
24 table. If a packet is being sent to such a user, the ISP
25 server 100 screens the packet based on the specific
26 filtering scheme and filtering elements. For certain
27 schemes or elements, multiple data packets may have to
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013