Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
In essence, we are in general agreement with the positions
on this issue advocated by appellants in the brief and reply
brief. From an artisan’s perspective, the logical connection
identification information mentioned in the original and amended
abstract, the summary of the invention at page 5, lines 16
through 18 of the specification as filed as well as at page 7,
lines 9 and 10 indicate to the artisan that this is well known in
the art as Virtual Channel Information otherwise known as VCI.
This understanding is independently confirmed by the teaching in
the paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of Takashima, the
reference relied upon by the examiner’s basis for the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This VCI information is a part of the
header of the ATM cells. In fact, Fig. 2 of the disclosed
invention shows VCI=a and VCI=b comprising the headers of the
respective cells 30 and 32 to be merged into the new cell 38
comprising a separate header 40 encompassing VCI=c information.
The entire discussion of this figure at specification page
7, line 6 through page 9, line 6 confirms the statements made by
appellants in the brief and reply brief as to the merging methods
of each of the independent claims on appeal. In fact, the
definition of the header 40 in the merged cell 38 shown in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007