Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 process, as a data packet is not forwarded to the destination node unless and
2 until it has first been screened by the filtering scheme.
3 Stevens is relied on by the Examiner to show the details of
4 conventional TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet protocol) and
5 does not make up for the deficiencies of the Abraham as discussed above.
6 The Anticipation Rejection of
7 Claims 1-9 and 11-18 over Engel
8
9 As is in the case of the anticipation rejections over Abraham and
10 Cirasole, in the case of the alleged anticipation by Engel, the Examiner has
11 failed to establish that Engel discloses assembling of data packets to form a
12 multi-packet communication to which is then applied the access rules (claim
13 1) for controlling access or the information content of which is used for
14 applying an access rule (claims 11 and 15). According to the Examiner, the
15 sending of a discrete transmission or communication in multiple data
16 packets and the subsequent collection and assembly of the separate packets
17 to reform the original transmitted message is conventional in the art. It is,
18 and the Patent Owner agrees with that assessment. But it cannot be taken
19 out of context. For receiving the entire transmission at the destination node,
20 it is conventional and common place to reassemble the separately
21 transmitted data packets into the original multi-packet communication.
22 That, however, is not what the claim feature in dispute is about. The
23 invention claimed is about controlling network access by applying an access
24 rule to an assembled multi-packet communication (claim 1) or information
25 content acquired from an assembled multi-packet communication (claims 11
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013