Appeal No. 2001-1123
Application No. 08/990,759
in the art to use the well-known connectionless user datagram protocol (UDP) as taught by
Shimokawa as the connectionless protocol disclosed by Motoyama. In Motoyama, the available
connectionless protocol (e.g., UDP) would be used if another one is not available when initiating an
information transfer over the communications interface.
The obviousness rejection of claim 6 is sustained because appellants have not presented any
patentability arguments for this claim (brief, page 11).
The obviousness rejection of claim 7 is sustained because as indicated supra, Motoyama
teaches that the connection oriented protocol should be used when the connectionless protocol is not
appropriate for the type of information that is to be transmitted to a diagnostic station.
The obviousness rejection of claim 9 is sustained because appellants have not presented any
patentability arguments for this claim (brief, page 11).
The obviousness rejection of claim 30 is sustained because Motoyama teaches the first
alternative of this claim as indicated supra.
The anticipation rejection of claims 13, 14, 21 and 26 is reversed because Motoyama does
not teach “simultaneously” storing “state information needed for a connection using Transaction
TCP (T/TCP).”
The obviousness rejection of claims 17, 23, 28 and 33 is reversed because the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the use of a
cache in connection with the connectionless protocol information.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007