Appeal No. 1997-0629
Application No. 08/085,505
service providers. Further, Appellant’s argument that Britton
has no need to provide jump addresses since all of the
transport stack drivers are already “up and running” is
directly contrary to Britton’s disclosure in Figure 5F which
explicitly provides for the address registration of new
service providers.
We further agree with the Examiner that the common data
structure of appealed claim 5 is suggested by the data
structure format illustrated, for example, in Figures 9 and 10
of Britton. Similarly, we agree that the global memory
recited in dependent claim 6 is met by the address registry 17
in Britton which triggers access by the transport providers.
Further, as mentioned previously, the limitations of dependent
claims 7 and 8 have not been separately argued by Appellants
and, accordingly, claims 7 and 8 fall with their base claim 2.
In conclusion, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of all of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2-8
is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007