Appeal No. 2002-2292
Application No. 09/139,749
definition. Since a change in the logical connections of
Muszynski is not equivalent to the claimed “releasing a number of
transport level connections” and “establishing a new transport
level connection,” and the examiner has not shown any evidence of
transport level connections in Muszynski, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Moreover, we also will not sustain the rejection of claims
5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner takes “official notice”
that it is “common in the art to have the link layer protocol
between mobile switching centers be a ATM channel operating under
AAL2" [answer-page 4] and contends that it would have been
obvious “to have used AAL2 protocol for communication between the
mobile switching centers...of Muszynski...since this is the
common protocol for such communication and would have been a
convenient design choice for the artisan for the advantages
granted by ATM” [answer-page 5].
Since Muszynski has been held, supra, to not disclose the
claimed transport level connections, we need not reach the
question of obviousness of using an AAL2 protocol because the
claimed subject matter is clearly not suggested by Muszynski in
combination with the common knowledge asserted by the examiner
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007