Ex Parte Cheng - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-0959                                                                             
               Application 10/082,893                                                                       
                                                                                                           
                                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                 
                      Appellant invented a method and system for transferring data from a                   
               host memory to an Ethernet device.  Specifically, data is transferred directly               
               to the Ethernet device without storing the data in the embedded memory of                    
               an adapter that includes the Ethernet device.  Such a technique improves                     
               transmit performance by eliminating the need to copy the data to the                         
               embedded memory.1  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                  
                      1.  A method comprising:                                                              
                      transferring data from a host memory to an Ethernet device; and                       
                      processing the data without sending the data from the host memory to                  
               an embedded memory associated with an adapter that includes the Ethernet                     
               device.                                                                                      

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show                      
               unpatentability:                                                                             
               Davis                     US 6,324,609 B1           Nov. 27, 2001                            

                      The Examiner’s rejection is as follows:                                               
                      Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                            
               anticipated by Davis.                                                                        
                      Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we                     
               refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.  In this                    
               decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by                           
               Appellant.  Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to                       
               make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.                     
               See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).                                                            

                                                                                                           
               1 See generally Specification 7:19 - 8:2.                                                    
                                                     2                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013