Appeal No. 2002-1383
Application No. 08/868,972
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fisk.
Section 103 -- Claims 8, 12, 18, 23, 25, 27, and 29 over Subramanian
The majority of appellants’ arguments in response to the section 103 rejection
over Subramanian (Brief at 13-15) rely on the view that the reference fails to disclose or
suggest a virtual circuit bunch. We find the position untenable.3
Instant claim 12 recites that the step of establishing a plurality of virtual circuits
“includes setting up switching tables when at least one subsequent node has
acknowledged the request.” As we have noted previously, Subramanian at column 7
teaches that the supervisor ensures the proper resources are available to support data
transfer. The supervisor subsequently notifies each intermediate switch to update
broadcast and translation tables in the switch to allow for proper switching of cells
transmitted by the client. Manifestly, the supervisor must receive acknowledgment from
at least one subsequent node -- i.e., ensures that the proper resources are available to
support data transfer -- before causing each intermediate switch to set up the proper
switching tables.
3 As previously noted, we consider all limitations of claim 18 to be met by Subramanian. A claim
that is anticipated by a reference is also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, since “anticipation is the epitome
of obviousness.” See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
-12-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007