Appeal No. 2001-2030
Application No. 08/874,046
the “teachings relative to the first sublayer within his layer 2
which ‘includes the arrangement of data bytes for identifying the
type of packet, the data content of the packet, and special bytes
for assisting the detection and correction of transmission
errors’ as used to communicate with his different consumer
appliances 80A, 80B, etc. (col. 4, lines 15-20)” [answer-page 5].
With regard to claim 35, the examiner argues that the scope
of this claim is “the same as or broader than that of claims 1-9
in every way” [answer-page 8] and concludes that the same
reasoning applied with regard to claim 1 would be equally
applicable to independent claim 35.
We REVERSE.
The fatal flaw in the examiner’s case, as we view it, is in
the examiner’s contention that Bertsch implies that different
appliances have different formats and that, somehow, Bertsch
relates to components of a particular group being configured to
compose and send messages according to a “protocol that differs
from a protocol employed by another group of components,” as
claimed.
As clearly pointed out by appellants in both the principal
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007