Appeal No. 2001-1911
Application No. 08/825,492
3 of the final rejection makes specific reference to Figs. 15, 18
through 20 and 28 through 31 as well as various corresponding
columns in Takashima that discuss these figures.
Equally significant is appellants’ admission in the middle
of page 5 of the principal brief on appeal that Takashima does
disclose the merging of two or more ATM cells into a new ATM cell
in the discussion with respect to Fig. 15 at column 10. It is
not understood how appellant can recognize here that Takashima
teaches that Takashima’s header information indicates the number
of merged cells or the data boundary of those cells according to
the teachings at column 10 and the showing of Fig. 15 of
Takashima and yet argue that this teaching does not indicate “a
merging method” to the extent broadly recited in independent
claims 1 and 14 on appeal. As indicated earlier in this opinion
with respect to our discussion of the reversal of the rejection
of the claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
appellants’ methodology clearly encompasses both by indicating,
in the preamble or the header of the disclosed ATM cell, the
ability to indicate the number of merged cells and their
respective data boundaries. Significantly, there is also no
methodology per se recited in representative independent claim
1 on appeal. Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ argument at
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007