Appeal No. 1996-4025
Application 07/995,591
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1994), citing Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
On page 10 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Hedlund fails to teach or suggest the retrieval, recomputation
and updates of the CRC values responsive to cellified payloads
of said transmit packets being packed for transmission as
recited in Appellants' claims 29 and 30. We note that the
Examiner never addressed this issue.
Upon our review of Hedlund, we fail to find that
Hedlund teaches the above claim limitation. Furthermore, we
fail to find that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of why this claim limitation would be inherent.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 11, 13 through 15, 18 and
23 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hedlund in view of Burrows. Appellants
argue on pages 13 and 14 of the brief that Hedlund fails to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007