Appeal No. 2001-0848
Application 09/144,414
data communication system was well known in the art as set forth
in the standard TCP/IP protocols.
Although appellant has nominally indicated that
independent claims 1 and 8 stand or fall separately [brief, page
9], the arguments section of the brief argues these two claims as
a single group. Therefore, we will consider claims 1 and 8 as
constituting a single group for purposes of this appeal.
Appellant argues that Mahany does not teach or suggest monitoring
delivery of messages of a type for which an acknowledgment is
expected to obtain reliability information for sending messages
of a type for which an acknowledgment is not expected. Appellant
notes that Mahany only deals with messages for which an
acknowledgment is expected. Appellant argues that the examiner’s
taking of Official Notice is based on a finding which is opposite
to what Mahany states. Appellant also argues that knowledge of
the TCP/IP protocol would not have led the artisan to use
reliability statistics obtained from messages sent when an
acknowledgment is expected to estimate or calculate delivery
parameters needed for messages sent when an acknowledgment is not
expected. Finally, appellant argues that the examiner’s
unsubstantiated conclusion that one protocol encapsulates the
other protocol is not correct [brief, pages 11-14].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007