Appeal No. 1998-1473 Page 6
Application No. 08/493,741
perform the steps which are reverse of [sic] those described
in Mansour (claimed steps), in order to restore Mansour's
Network to its original state, once Link 103 is restored."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "to suggest
that the reversing of the steps of the Mansour method is the
same as the claimed invention is believed to be totally
without merit.... [T]here is not the slightest scintilla of
evidence in the prior art suggesting the claimed invention
...." (Appeal Br. at 11.)
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the claimed
limitations in Mansour. He admits, "[t]he reference differs
from the claims in the fact that it does not address the
subject of reinstating the traffic to its original route once
failed link 103 is restored." (Examiner's Answer at 4.)
Faced with this deficiency, the examiner opines, "it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to perform the steps which are
reverse of [sic] those described in Mansour (claimed steps),
in order to restore Mansour's Network to its original state,
once Link 103 is restored." (Id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007