Appeal No. 2001-1678
Application No. 09/001,729
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 14) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being anticipated by Klingman is set forth
at page 3 of the Answer. We note that Klingman’s preferred embodiment uses B
(bearer)-channels for transmitting data in a ring network. However, the reference
discloses (col. 7, ll. 57-60) that D (data)-channels may be used for the network
communication.
Appellants present no arguments in opposition to the rejection of claim 5 and
expressly set out (Brief at 9) that the rejection is not contested. We sustain the rejection
of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to the further requirements of dependent claim 6, the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 adds “official notice” to the effect that the features of “routing
parameters” being stored at each station and the parameters comprising an “estimated
wait time (EWT)” were well known in the art. (Answer at 4.) The examiner supports the
taking of “official notice” by citing three U.S. patents. (Id. at 6.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007