Appeal No. 1998-1181
Application No. 08/442,883
The rejection of these dependent claims provides no
additional basis for the Examiner's assertion that Blair
teaches the limitation of defining multiple home SIDs, and
makes no assertion that such limitation is obvious.
Therefore, as we have found above that this limitation is not 24
taught by Blair, we reverse this rejection.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 55-56
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Krolopp.
D. Rejection of claims 46-50 and 55-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Blair in view of Krollop
Appellant initially argues that this rejection is 25
erroneous as there is no motivation to combine Blair and
Krolopp, and the combination made in the rejection is
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention.
Second, Appellants argue that even if the references26
were combined the combination would not teach automatically
selecting methods and apparatus (Appellants' emphasis).
24 Section A.
25 Reply Brief, page 5.
26 Reply Brief, page 6.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007