Appeal No. 2002-1498
Application No. 09/042,202
no such specifics, or even the suggestion of placing the initial
credit value in a packet, in Barker. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 21, or of claims 6-13 and
22-29, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Since Barker does not appear to disclose each and every
limitation of claims 5-16 and 21-32, we will not sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
With regard to dependent claims 2 and 18, these claims
recite that the initial credit value “is equal to a size of a
queue that is resident on the second node and receives
information from the first node.” While appellant does not
specifically argue these limitations, it appears that Barker
discloses this at column 4, lines 57-62, wherein it is explained
how and why a certain initial value n is chosen. Thus, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 18 under 5 U.S.C. 102(e).
We have not sustained the rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, nor have we sustained the
rejection of claims 3, 5-16, 19 and 21-32 under 35 U.S.C.
102(e). We have, however, sustained the rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007