Appeal No. 2001-0530
Application No. 08/828,484
in at least two different modes. (See brief at page 6.) Appellant argues that claim 1
requires that the gateway computer is capable of acting as a host computer.
Appellant argues that the gateway computer is (1) capable of communicating directly
with a host computer on one of the networks and blocking transmission to the other
network; (2) controlling communication between the two networks; and (3) operating
on the data at the gateway computer itself. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with
appellant, and find no clear teaching or suggestion in Okanoue that the “gateway node”
is a host computer. We note that appellant has repeatedly argued this point in the brief,
but the examiner has never directly addressed this argument. We note that the rejection
has been drafted using the term “gateway computer” throughout, but we find no support
that the “gateway node” is a host computer. The examiner cites to column 4 and
Figures 2, 9(b) and 10(b) to teach a gateway computer at page 3 of the answer and to
columns 6 and 2 for determining whether the data packet is addressed to the gateway
computer and communicating between the source host and the gateway computer.2
From our review of the cited passages and the remainder of the teachings of Okanoue,
we find no clear teaching or suggestion that the gateway node is a host computer. The
examiner appears to accept this as a given, but we find no support for the examiner’s
2 We note that the language of independent claims 1 and 17 recite multiple “determining” steps or
functions and ultimately recite “responsive to a positive determination, communicating between said
source host and said gateway computer.” Here, we interpret this ultimate limitation to refer to the
immediate prior step of “determining at said gateway computer whether said data packet is addressed to
said gateway computer.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007