Appeal No. 2001-2578
Application No. 08/977,547
43-46) for providing the rationale for to making such combination
and asserts that the desire to ensure that the communicating
parties use the right protocol would have made it obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references (answer,
page 20).
After a review of Klotzbach, we find ourselves in agreement
with Appellants’ position that negotiating the device protocol in
Klotzbach is performed in the physical layer and may not be
properly combined with Smith. Klotzbach uses a bi-directional
wire-line interface to a local area network which provides a
physical connection among the users and the server (col. 1, lines
1-6 & 29-37). The Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in
the reference, nor do we find any, that corresponds to
negotiating device protocol options, or any device
communications, at the application layer connection.
Additionally, we find that what the Examiner relies on as the
reason for combining the references, “Protocol” in Column 20,
lines 43-45 (answer, page 20) and “Telnet” in Column 22, lines 11
& 12 (answer, page 17), are merely entries under the “GLOSSARY”
section of the Klotzbach disclosure. These general descriptions
represent the terminology common in the art and have nothing to
do with the specific disclosed invention or why protocol
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007