Appeal No. 1999-2380
Application No. 08/575,743 Page 9
the invention, and that (id., page 3) "[i]ncluding the uncertain
state allows greater flexibility in filtering data packets."
We find that as illustrated in appellants' figures 2C and
3C, in some instances, the determination of uncertainty is
processed along with a determination that a source or destination
address is associated with anyone of a plurality of secured
computers; and that in some instances, the determination of
uncertainty is processed along with a determination that a source
or address is associated with anyone of a plurality of secured
computers. Irrespective of how the determination of uncertainty
is processed after the determination is made, the claims require
a separate determination of whether association of the address
with anyone of the plurality of secured computers is uncertain.
Thus, we disagree with the examiner's interpretation of the
claims.
Turning to the prior art applied against the claims, we find
that the issue with respect to each of the independent claims 1,
7, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is whether Jacobson and Futral teach or
suggest determining, with a degree of certainty, whether a source
address (claims 7, 15, and 18) or destination address (claims 11,
17, and 20) or both (claim 1): is associated with anyone of a
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007