Appeal No. 96-1921
Application No. 08/225,158
OPINION
We reverse.
The examiner clearly has not made out a prima facie case
of anticipation of the instant claimed subject matter.
While the examiner points to Figures 6 and 8 as admitted
prior art in the disclosure as evidence of anticipation of the
claimed subject matter, it is clear that Figure 6 refers to a
flow diagram of a prior art VTAM SEND event while Figure 8
relates to a flow diagram of a prior art VTAM RECEIVE event.
However, the instant claims are clearly directed to bypassing
the VTAM. There is no indication of any bypassing of the VTAM
in the prior art figures cited by the examiner.
The examiner’s response to this argument made by
appellants is to indicate that the claims are somehow not
directed to any bypassing process since “the claims are silent
as to what is being bypassed or who or what is doing the
bypassing or not doing the bypassing” [answer-page 5].
We agree with appellants that independent claim 10 is
very clear and specific as to the bypass operation. The
preamble of the claim indicates that we are concerned with a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007