Appeal No. 2002-1383
Application No. 08/868,972
as anticipated by Subramanian. On this record, we are not persuaded that both of claim
18 and claim 19 are not fully met by Subramanian, particularly in view of the breadth of
claim 19. The claim recites that a packet is assigned a virtual channel identifier “without
setting up a connection.” The claim does not specify what type of “connection” is not to
be set up. In any event, Subramanian teaches that a virtual, but not physical,
connection is set up between clients.
We are not persuaded that the examiner’s finding of anticipation is in error. We
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Subramanian.
Section 102 -- Claim 17 over Fisk
Appellants’ response to the section 102 rejection of claim 17 over Fisk (Brief at
12-13) relies on the allegation that Fisk does not teach or suggest a virtual circuit bunch.
Under a proper interpretation of the relevant term, we are not persuaded that virtual
circuits grouped and routed, as described by Fisk, cannot be considered a virtual circuit
bunch.
Appellants’ additional arguments in support claim 17, regarding how virtual paths
may be set up or broken down, and the details of “actual, real-time establishment and
use of virtual circuits,” are not commensurate with the actual requirements of the claim.
Claim 17 purports, after all, a “method of allocating virtual circuits in a switching
system,” rather than being limited to any so-called real-time system.
-11-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007