Appeal No. 1997-0629
Application No. 08/085,505
5F and accompanying description at column 11, lines 9-22
disclose the address registration process for adding new
transport providers to the system.
For all of the reasons discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s analysis that each of the claimed method steps are
shown to exist in Britton and, accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 as anticipated by Britton is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of dependent claims 2-6,
grouped and argued separately by Appellant, we sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of these claims as
well. With respect to dependent claims 3 and 4, we agree with
the Examiner (Answer, pages 7 and 8) that, although Britton
does not use the terminology “vector” or “jump addresses”, the
address registration mechanisms discussed by Britton are the
clear equivalents of Appellant’s claimed functions since they
enable
communication between the application programs and the
transport
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007