Appeal No. 96-1921
Application No. 08/225,158
issuing the instruction intending it to be processed by VTAM,
and causes the method set forth in claim 10 to be carried out,
bypassing VTAM.
Since the prior art referenced by the examiner relates to
VTAM, while the instant claims are directed to bypassing VTAM,
there is no anticipation of the instant claimed invention by
the cited prior art. More specifically, we find nothing in
the prior art cited that suggests step (e) of the method
recited in claim 10. There is no conversion, in the prior art
cited, of the outgoing data stream to an incoming data stream
by modifying the RECEIVE request’s RPL portion to include the
address of the buffer memory where the SEND request’s data
portion is stored.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007