Appeal 2007-0708
Application 09/881,367
As to claims 8 and 10 through 15, we have found that Ogawa teaches a
receiving circuit for simultaneously processing the parameters of an
incoming frame in a first network to identify a suitable protocol from among
a plurality of protocols to produce parameters of an outgoing frame for use
in external circuit, which can be separated from the receiving circuit by a
firewall. (Findings of facts 5 through 11.) It follows that the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claims 8 and 10 through 15 as being anticipated by
Ogawa.
We have reviewed claims 16 and 17. We find that they are broader in
scope than claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 15, as discussed above. We
have also found that Ogawa teaches a circuit for executing the steps in the
cited claims. (Findings of fact 5 through 11.) It follows that the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 16 and 17 as being anticipated by Ogawa.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of dependent claim 9 as being
unpatentable over Ogawa. We note that claim 9 depends directly from claim
1. Thus, claim 9 also requires reading and processing parameters of an
incoming frame in a first network to produce an outgoing frame for use in a
second network. For the reasons set forth in the discussion of claim 1 in the
preceding paragraph, we find that Ogawa teaches the cited limitations, as
discussed above. Further, claim 9 requires that the processing of such
incoming parameters be non-programmable. We find that there is no
indication in Ogawa that the processing of the incoming parameters as
performed by receiving circuit to be programmable. Absent such an
indication, it would not be unreasonable to assert that Ogawa’s disclosed
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013