Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
We agree with appellant’s argument. In the ISL
encapsulation technique disclosed by Edsall, the original packet
300 (Figures 3 and 6) is tagged with an ISL header that includes
both the ISL destination address 602 and the ISL source address
604 (column 6, lines 19 through 27 and 56 through 67; column 7,
lines 33 through 44; and column 8, lines 23 through 31 and
41 through 60). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 2, 7, 8, 11 and 13 is reversed because “there is no basis for
calling Edsall’s ISL destination address a media header and ISL
source address a tag” (reply brief, page 3).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 through 6, 9,
14 and 16 through 18 is reversed because the wireless LAN
teachings of Hyden do not cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Edsall.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007