Appeal No. 2000-1561
Application No. 08/768,922
the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have
no basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We find no language in
the present appealed claims which requires any feature directed
to establishing a record or history of data packets which have
been successfully transmitted.
We similarly find to be unpersuasive Appellant’s related
argument (Brief, page 9) that, in contrast to Appellant’s
invention, in Kirchner “ . . . the entire sequence of packets is
resent after interruption of transmission.” We find no support
in Kirchner for this conclusion of Appellant. To the contrary,
Kirchner (column 8, lines 46-50) discloses that, in the situation
in which not all of the previously transmitted data has been
acknowledged, then “ . . . [only] the most outstanding, non-
acknowledged data packet with the current sequence number
information included” is resent.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the
claimed limitations are present in the disclosure of Kirchner,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim
4, as well as claims 6-8 which fall with claim 4, is sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007