Appeal No. 98-3047
Application No. 08/576,539
Claims 10-13 have been allowed. (Id.)
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Miyagi.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Appellants present arguments for Claim 7 in view of the applied reference on pages 6 and 7 of
the Brief. Appellants separately argue Claim 9 on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief. Accordingly, we will
consider the merits of each of Claims 7 and 9, with Claim 8 standing or falling with Claim 7. See 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Claims 7 and 8
The examiner refers to column 5, line 63 to column 6, line 42 and Figs. 4 and 5 of Miyagi as the
most pertinent portion of the reference. (Answer, pages 4-5.)
Appellants respond that the reference apparatus “does not teach nor suggest that status
determinations are made irrespective of the order of the received packets.” (Brief, page 6.) Appellants
state that “it is clear that the circuit 111 [the fault detection and notification circuit detailed in Fig. 4 of
Miyagi] evaluates only the connections which relate to the current cell or packet.” (Id. at 7.) The
allegations are based on appellants’ interpretation of the reference. “Miyagi looks up and responds to
information relating to those connections which relate to the virtual path or virtual connection which is
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007