Appeal No. 2001-0910
Application No. 08/903,756
based on the evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
asserted conclusion. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of DeSimone, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, nor of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11,
13, 14, 16-20, 22, and 23 dependent thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 12, and 21
based on DeSimone. Each of the claims incorporates the source
route bridge communication determination and bypass features of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, features which we found lacking
of any teaching or suggestion in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007