Appeal No. 96-3368 Page 8
Application No. 07/735,020
request is determined to be executable, and making access to the remote-
station memory or transmitting a request to one of said network nodes in
accordance with the non-OSI-based definition.
Here, the Examiner has not addressed the specific language of claim 1, but merely
addressed general propositions which may or may not correspond to the claimed invention
when taken as a whole. The Examiner characterizes the “nodes” as “merely switches in
the communications network” and cites to the specification at page 4, lines 13-25. (See
answer at page 8.) This specific passage does not describe the nodes as merely
switches, but discusses the “network node is made up of communications ‘equipment’
which are the objects of network management and will be referred to as such in the
following description in so far as managed objects are concerned.” Clearly the Examiner
has oversimplified the “node” and the associated communication therewith. Furthermore,
appellant asserts that "[i]n the present invention, the same message is not retransmitted.”
(See reply brief at page 1.) The Examiner continues to discuss retransmission in the
supplemental Examiner's Answer at page 3, but this line of reasoning is not on point with
respect to the transmission as discussed above.
Claim 5 contains similar machine/structural limitations which have not been
addressed by the Examiner. Similarly, the controller in claim 5 contains limitations
concerning determining if the “request is concerned with attributes stored in the remote
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007