Appeal No. 2003-0483
Application No. 09/375,429
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is the examiner’s position
that Gervais anticipates the claimed invention because of its disclosure of device
identification information (net) that is distinct from location address (id) information. In
particular, the examiner points to Figures 6 and 7 and column 3, lines 8-13, column 4,
line 54 to column 5, line 16 and column 7, lines 32-42 of Gervais for a teaching of a
network number which indicates the device identification or local area network that
includes a particular node, wherein the node id indicates the different node address
(net:id).
Appellants argue that Gervais does not teach the receipt of a packet that
includes device identification information that is distinct from location address
information, as claimed. In particular, appellants point out that a full node address 412
in Gervais is composed of a globally unique portion 602 and a local assignable portion
604 which, taken together, are sufficient to identify and locate a node address, but
neither one of these alone is sufficient either to identify the node address or to locate
the node address. Further, since the node address is only “unique” within the domain,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007