Appeal No. 2002-1997 Page 8
Application No. 08/828,549
The absence of a teaching of a network connection device located inside an
exchange and connected between the core of a switch and a computer network and a
signal processor located inside the network connection device that converts the signal
structure of data signals to data packets having a signal structure suitable for data
communication negate anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claims 17 and 18.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-28 over Focsaneanu
We address two points of contention between the examiner and the appellant.
First, the examiner alleges, "Figs. 7-8 illustrates a local (210) access service provider
that comprises a PSTN (col 10/line 10-39). . . ." (Appeal Br. at 9.) The appellant
argues, "[t]here in nothing in Focsaneanu which would have indicated that there would
be a switch, much less a PSTN, in the local access 210." (Reply Br. at 7.)
Independent claims 1, 14, and 15 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "connection of a computer to a computer network via a telecommunication
network. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 17 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "connection of a computer to a computer network via a public switched
telephone network. . . ." Also similarly, independent claim 18 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: "data signals are sent from the computer over a public
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007