Appeal No. 2001-2578
Application No. 08/977,547
connection associated with the organization of the user session
in Figure 9 (answer, page 19).
We are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s speculative arguments
and find that Appellants have reasonably rebutted the Examiner’s
arguments and have explained why the TCP/IP transport layer
connection cannot establish a persistent application layer
connection, as shown in Figure 9 of Smith. What the Examiner
relies in Column 6, line 30 of Smith is actually a list of the
possible shared components that may be implemented as needed
(col. 6, lines 31 & 32) and does not conclusively teach the
implementation of both TCP/IP sockets and HTTP server interface
for the connection. Furthermore, Appellants have repeatedly
argued that communication and negotiations among networks can
only be done between their corresponding layers (brief, pages 5-
7) and have pointed out the inconsistency in Figure 9 where the
communication appears to be between an application layer and a
transport layer. As a result, the burden is shifted back to the
Examiner to rebut and present arguments as to why the TCP/IP
connection in Figure 9 provides communication between the
application and transport layers. Additionally, Appellants’
reference to Figure 16 of Smith, in which a “portable document
send client application” and a “portable document receive client
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007