Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 be buffered. If the data packet or packets trigger the
2 filtering scheme, such as by containing specific words or
3 phrases, the transmission to the user may be terminated.
4
5 As for the “non-intrusive” feature, the Examiner appears to take the
6 position that so long as unrestricted communication somehow winds its way
7 to the intended destination node at some time, after all the receiving,
8 assembling, identifying, and applying functions have been carried out, all
9 that which have taken place can be regarded as non-intrusive. That
10 interpretation is far from being consistent with the ‘786 Patent. As is
11 explained in the ‘786 Patent, non-intrusive monitoring is done at nodes other
12 than choke points in the network and has no impact on the performance of
13 the network (See FF. 18 and 19). Claim 1 further buttresses the “non-
14 intrusive” requirement by particularly specifying that the monitoring,
15 assembling, identifying, and applying steps are performed “such that traffic
16 flow of data packets from said source nodes to said destination nodes is
17 unaffected by said steps.” Claim 15 further buttresses the “non-intrusive”
18 requirement by particularly specifying that the identifying and assembling
19 are non-intrusive “with respect to said continuous packet flow of said data
20 packets within said network,” and that the access control is enabled “to
21 allow continuous flow of packets of said discrete transmissions to remain
22 unhindered when said rules indicate an unrestricted transmission on the basis
23 of said multi-packet communications.” The Examiner evidently has not
24 analyzed the impact on data packet flow with respect to the access control
25 disclosed in Cirasole. Moreover, the above-quoted portion of Cirasole cited
26 by the Examiner suggests data packet flow is indeed affected by the filtering
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013