Appeal No. 2003-0483
Application No. 09/375,429
Appellants argue that this is not a fair interpretation because Gervais discloses
the receipt of a packet (column 7, line 5) and then a network layer header is added,
whereas the instant claims require that the packet received already includes the device
identification information that is distinct from location address information.
The particular interpretation is dependent on what is considered a receipt of the
packet. In Gervais, while a packet, without the device identification and location
information, is received at the network layer, at line 5 of column 7 of Gervais, it may just
as well be considered that the point of “receipt” may be established at the point after the
network header, including the device identification and location information, is added.
At that point, this new packet, with the header information, is processed and forwarded
to the location address, meeting the claim limitations.
Similarly, with regard to claim 2, while this claim recites a “globally unique device
identifier,” the device identifier of Gervais may be considered to be “globally unique” in
the sense that only one device is being identified.
Since the examiner appears to have established a prima facie case of
anticipation which has not been convincingly argued by appellants, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007