Ex Parte Tarquini et al - Page 10

                Appeal 2007-1276                                                                              
                Application 10/001,446                                                                        
                data frames transmitted across the network medium," as claimed.  The                          
                Examiner found that the network management station met the "intrusion                         
                protection system appliance" limitation.  (Answer 5, 7.)  But as Appellants                   
                correctly point out, there is no indication that the network management                       
                station is an intrusion protection system appliance.  (Br. 7; Reply Br. 5; see                
                also FF 5.)  Further, Appellants correctly note that the function of filtering                
                inbound and outbound discovery request frames discussed by the Examiner                       
                at page 5 of the Answer is performed by the managed hub rather than by the                    
                network management station.  (Br. 7, Reply Br. 5; see also FF 2-5.)  Thus,                    
                Holloway does not teach or suggest "a network-based intrusion protection                      
                system appliance dedicated to filtering inbound and outbound data frames                      
                transmitted across the network medium," as claimed.                                           
                      Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8, and we find that the Examiner                          
                erred in rejecting them for the same reason as discussed with respect to                      
                claim 8.                                                                                      
                      Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims                      
                8-10 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Holloway.                               

                                         CONCLUSION OF LAW                                                    
                      Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that:                    
                (1)  The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 for anticipation under                  
                35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                                           
                (2)  The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10 for anticipation under                       
                35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                                           




                                                     10                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013