Appeal No. 2002-1997 Page 3
Application No. 08/828,549
monitoring, by a local control means in the network connection
device in the telephone exchange, every connection set up between a
computer and the computer network.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
Patent No.5,946,386 ("Rogers"). Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,610,910 ("Focsaneanu").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• anticipation rejection of claims 17 and 18 over Rogers
• obviousness rejection of claims 1-28 over Focsaneanu.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 17 and 18 over Rogers
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address three points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner alleges, "Rogers
teaches a telephone system comprising an exchange 104 . . . a network connection
device (203 or 206) in said exchange, that is connected between said switch core and
said computer network (Fig. 2). . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellant argues,
"the CO trunk interface 203 is connected between the CO trunks 202 and the circuit
switches 204, and not between the circuit switches 204 and the computer network. . . ."
(Appeal Br. at 26.) He further argues, "the PBX trunk interface is connected between
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007