Appeal No. 2001-0530
Application No. 08/828,484
finding, and the examiner has not directly addressed this issue. The examiner includes
two definitions at page 26 of the answer with respect to node and gateway. Here, we
note that both definitions refer to “a device” rather than a “computer” or “host computer.”
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive with respect to the examiner’s position that
Okanoue teaches a “gateway computer.” The examiner’s analysis of the disclosure of
Okanoue at pages 27-28 of the answer shows that Okanoue teaches a determination of
whether the data packet is intended for the same network or a different network and
performing blocking when appropriate. We find no teaching of the gateway node acting
as a separate host computer and acting on the data packet. Therefore, the examiner’s
position and argument are not persuasive, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and its corresponding dependent claims. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under § 103 is reversed. We turn next to the rejection of
claims 9-35 under § 103 as unpatentable over Okanoue in view of Perlman.
Our reviewing Court has made it clear in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) that rejections must be supported by the
administrative record and that where the record is lacking in evidence, this Board
cannot and should not resort to unsupported speculation. (See also, In re Warner, 379
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007