Appeal No. 96-0312
Application No. 08/083,561
11, and 13) and identifying the command in a
received ARP response packet (claims 1, 7 and 13) at
each station in the network so that each station is
aware of the command.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, pages 4 through 6) that
address resolution protocol (ADR) is explained in detail in
Comer, and that it would have obvious to incorporate concepts
disclosed therein in Marbaker. Notwithstanding the
combinability of the teachings of the two references, we are
still left with the fact that the combined teachings do not
address a master-slave relationship in which each of the slave
stations responds after being commanded by a master station
(claims 7 through 15), and do not address each master station
in the network being made aware of commands sent to a
responding station (claims 1 through 15). The obviousness
rejection is reversed because the stations in the applied
references communicate with each other on an equal footing,
and they are not concerned with ordering one station to
respond to a command. More importantly, none of the stations
in either reference is concerned with being made aware of
commands sent from one station to another station. Thus, the
obviousness rejection is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007