Appeal No. 1999-2380
Application No. 08/575,743 Page 13
From all of the above, we therefore find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention found in independent claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 17, 18, and
20. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and
14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) where the examiner additionally relies upon
the teachings of Judson for a teaching of packets including
applets. We will not sustain the rejection of these claims
because Judson does not make up for the deficiencies of the basic
combination of Jacobson and Futral. Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007