Appeal No. 2000-1561
Application No. 08/768,922
With respect to independent claim 4, the representative
claim for Appellant’s first suggested grouping (including claims
4 and 6-8, the Examiner indicates (Answer, pages 4-6) how the
various limitations are read on the disclosure of Kirchner. In
particular, the Examiner points to the illustrations in
Kirchner’s Figure 10 and the accompanying description beginning
at column 7, line 35.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come forward with
evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have
not been considered (see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)).
Appellant’s arguments in response (Brief, pages 7-9; Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3) focus on the Examiner’s alleged
misinterpretation of the Kirchner reference. In Appellant’s
view, Kirchner’s comparison of packet sequence numbers determines
only whether a data packet has been sent, in contrast to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007