Ex Parte Davies et al - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-0997                                                                       
               Application 09/875,670                                                                 

                                        FINDINGS OF FACT                                              
                     1.  Cheng relates to bridging a non-IP network and the Internet Web              
               using thin glue layers, which translate between IP protocol and HAVi API (¶            
               0011).                                                                                 
                     2.  As depicted in Figure 2, Cheng provides for a bridge between                 
               Internet 170 and a HAVi network 130 via two thin glue layers 220 and 260               
               (¶ 0023).                                                                              
                     3.  The only proxy is shown as HAVi Web proxy client 310 and                     
               HAVi Web proxy 320 included in the block diagram of the thin glue layer                
               220, as shown in Figure 3 (¶ 0027).                                                    
                     4.  The IP Web client 330 allows messaging between the HAVi-                     
               specific application 230 and the Internet Web server 180 (¶ 0031).                     
               However, Cheng does not show a server on the controller nor a proxy                    
               included in the IP network device, as recited in claim 29.                             
                     5.  Cheng does not explain how a message is communicated between                 
               each one of a HAVi network device and the IP network devices, as recited in            
               claim 29.                                                                              


                                       PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                              
                     A claimed invention is unpatentable as obvious “if the differences               
               between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such            
               that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the             
               invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said          



                                                  4                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013