Appeal 2007-2120
Application 09/911,149
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants 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
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carman. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Carman (Answer 3-4). Regarding
independent claims 1 and 36, Appellants argue that Carman does not
disclose assigning the specific memory address value as a security parameter
index (SPI) value associated with the received SA data structure, as claimed.
Appellants note that Carman teaches “using” the SPI to access the security
association database (SAD) -- a teaching that merely describes what is
generally known in the art (i.e., using the SPI value to create a hash key that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013