Appeal No. 2001-2296
Application No. 09/001,138
Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Each of claims 2
and 17 refers in the body of the claim to “the number of hosts,” “the number of
messages,” and “the number of user sessions.” We thus regard the preamble
recitations describing the hosts, messages, and user sessions as providing antecedent
for the corresponding elements in the body of the claims, and limiting the claimed
subject matter accordingly.
While undoubtedly data processing systems, users, hosts, concurrent
applications, and sending and receiving messages were in the prior art at the time of
invention, we agree with appellants that the rejection does not show the claimed
combinations in the Lewis reference.
The rejection (Answer at 4-6) is deficient in pointing out how disclosed structures
of Lewis are deemed to correspond to particular claim terms. The rejection does,
however, relate that “counting means” for counting the number of messages “is shown
by the prior art as the counter in figure 3 and discussed on Col. 4 lines 36 et seq.” (Id.
at 5.) A “counting means” is set forth in instant claims 1 and 2, and the “counting
means” referenced in the rejection apparently applies to the “number of counters” set
forth in claim 17.
Figure 1 of Lewis illustrates a telecommunications network comprising
equipment (e.g., telephones) 10, 26, connected to local central offices 12, 24. The
local central offices are attached in turn to toll switches 14, 20, and ultimately to
signaling network 32 and network control point (NCP) 40. NCP 40 stores a record for
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007