Appeal No. 96-0312
Application No. 08/083,561
directs its response to all of the master stations, then all
of the master stations will be made aware of the command.
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention explains the
operation of such a communications network. If the examiner
is questioning the efficacy of such a system, then perhaps a
rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is in
order. Otherwise, we agree with appellant’s arguments (Brief,
pages 5 and 6) that the claimed invention is clear to those of
skill in the art, and the indefiniteness rejection is
reversed.
Turning to the prior art rejection, the examiner
indicates (Answer, pages 3 and 4) that:
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,229,988 Marbaker discloses a
communication systems [sic, system] including a
plurality of stations. When station 106 wants to
know the physical address of station 108 (a target
station), station 106 sends an ARP request packet
201 including a command to all stations connected to
the network. The command comprises a physical
source address, IP source address, and IP target
address (Fig. 2A and 2B). Recognizing that the IP
target address 208 is its IP address, target station
108 broadcasts an ARP response packet (sending a
signal in response to a command sent thereto)
indicating its physical address (the status of claim
7), a hardware address. See Fig. 2A and 2B, col. 1,
lines 66, to col. 2, line 17. Marbaker does not
explain the well-known ARP protocol in detail; i.e.,
he does not fully disclose lookup tables (claims 5,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007