Appeal 2007-1114
Application 10/314,687
signal independent of the header information (Reply Br. 7-8), we find that
the updated table 322 of Yoo would perform this function independent of the
individual headers. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 27-28 and dependent claim
30 which depends therefrom.
With respect to dependent claims 29 and 31, Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not shown a control signal received from the switching node
to determine if the switching node is ready to receive the optical signal. We
disagree and find that the information from the table is updated from the
switches. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 29 and 31.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and we have sustained the rejection of claims 22-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013