Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
Therefore, we find that Bosack teaches the limitation of
“conducting a second transmission of the packet to a network
segment.”
We thus find that the claimed first (step (b)) and second
transmissions (step (c)) read on the prior art teaching of
conducting more than one transmission by Bosack. For instance,
in case of two separate transmissions of a packet by Bosack’s
gateway circuit to network segments, both steps (b) and (c) would
be met. Specifically, there would be a first transmissions of
the packet to one network segments in order to deliver the packet
to the packet destination, and a second transmission of the
packet to a network segment comprising the network monitor.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, Appellants argue that Douglas does not
teach or suggest either “specifying which packets are to be
delivered to a network monitor” or that “the specifying step is
performed more than once to yield different specifications of
packets to be delivered to a network monitor,” as recited in
claim 27. See Appeal Brief page 7, lines 25-30.
The Examiner argues on page 8, lines 13-23 of the Answer
that Bosack’s system gateway specifies which packet is to be
delivered to which network segment based on the destination
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007