Appeal No. 2000-2282
Application 08/713,046
address of the packet. Thus, the Examiner argues the gateway
would specify which packet is to be delivered to the monitoring
port based on the destination address of the packet. With regard
to the requirement in claim 27 that the specifying step is
performed more than once, the Examiner argues that if the
destination network monitor is not on a network that is directly
connected to the gateway, the gateway will also specify more than
one transmission (first and second transmissions) using the round
robin technique to try all possible paths to deliver the packet
to the destination network monitor. See Answer, page 3, lines
19-22. These different transmissions to the network segments,
according to the Examiner, would yield different specifications
of packets. See Answer, page 3, lines 22-23.
We note that the Examiner, by arguing that the gateway would
specify which packet is to be delivered to the monitoring port
based on the destination address of the packet and that different
transmissions to the network segments would yield different
specifications, has tried to establish that the claimed invention
of claim 27 is inherent in Bosack.
“The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question
of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and
obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007