Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 and 12
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 12 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Chen in view of
Maggenti.
Appellants argue that the Examiner does not make any argument, or
cite either reference [i.e., Chen or Maggenti] as disclosing taking a snapshot
of the old compressor and the decompressor context information and
delivering it to the new network entity after stopping the context information
[updating] (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that Chen teaches the
packet with its header (i.e., where context information is part of the header)
is sent from one base station to another. The Examiner argues it is inherent
that updating of any type within a packet must be stopped prior to sending
the packets. The Examiner reasons that if packets are not stopped, they
cannot have information changed within the packet (such as flags within the
headers). In addition, the Examiner asserts that Chen also teaches the use of
buffers to store packets if needed prior to sending out the packets. The
Examiner concludes that this further indicates that packets (i.e., including
header information, such as context information) are stopped prior to being
sent out (Answer 16-17).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013