Appeal 2006-3117
Application 09/732,498
artisan would not have readily recognized the need to combine Leermakers
with Brown and Travaille to yield the separate servers, as recited in
independent claim 1.
Additionally, we have found that Gessel teaches encapsulating nodes
in a telecommunication system using TCP/IP for transmission in a LAN that
uses internet socket interface of a UNIX type to permit communication
between processors of different formats. (Finding 11.) However, we fail to
find a sufficient rationale to integrate Gessel’s teaching of encapsulating
data into Brown’s server. We do not agree with the Examiner that such
integration would allow processors using different formats to communicate
since we find no indication in Brown that processors of different formats are
being used. It is therefore our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have not had the need to integrate TCP/IP in Brown to encapsulate
data before transferring them.
It follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers
and Gessel. We find for these same reasons that dependent claims 2 through
11 and 13 are not unpatentable over the cited combination. We reverse this
rejection.
Similarly, we reverse the rejection of dependent claim 12 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers, Gessel,
and Hendricks.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 14 through 17 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Travaille, Leermakers and
Diwan. We note that, as in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies
upon Leermakers for its teaching of a communication server to receive
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013