Appeal No. 1997-3835
Application No. 07/922,273
with or related to the data being transmitted or inputted may have been used by skilled
artisans as a search query in a search or look-up in a table for routing as disclosed by
Rhodes. Appellants argue that the keycode of Rhodes is not analogous to the message
type designation of the claimed invention. (See brief at page 4.) We disagree with
appellants and find no express limitation in the language of independent claims 1, 3, 5, 6
and 8 which provides details to the “message type,” and no evidence to distinguish the
message type from event type data. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the combination of Ben-Ayed and Rhodes is improper and
the examiner has used improper hindsight in reconstructing the claimed invention. (See
brief at page 7 and reply brief at pages 5-6.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue
that Ben-Ayed does not suggest the combination of the multi-processing environment of
Rhodes into the communications network of Ben-Ayed and similarly Rhodes does not
teach or suggest the use of the multi-processing functionality in a communication network.
The examiner maintains the “routing system of Rhodes enables Ben’s system to more
efficiently process data in a multi-processing environment.” (See answer at page 5.) The
examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion why one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to make the combination absent the teaching in appellants’ specification.
The examiner presents the same motivation for the combination of Ben-Ayed with Rhodes,
Terry and Boese. Similarly, we find that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007