Appeal No. 2001-0910
Application No. 08/903,756
illustration in Figure 4 of DeSimone along with the accompanying
description beginning at column 4, line 31.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of
DeSimone to disclose every limitation in independent claims 1, 8,
and 15 as is required to support a rejection based on
anticipation. Appellants’ arguments focus (Brief, pages
5 and 6; Reply Brief, page 4) on the contention that there is no
determination in DeSimone of when communication is to occur
through source route bridges as claimed. Instead, in Appellants’
view (id., at 5), DeSimone performs a rerouting of communication
“ . . . irrespective of whether or not a source route bridge is
in the path of communication” leading to Appellants’ further
assertion that, therefore, there is no bypassing of source route
bridges in DeSimone, as also required by each of the appealed
independent claims.
After reviewing the DeSimone reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as expressed in the Briefs. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of DeSimone coincides with that of Appellants, i.e.,
while DeSimone suggests the rerouting of communication through a
short-cut direct network communication to avoid communication
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007