Appeal No. 2002-1383
Application No. 08/868,972
Section 103 -- Claims 13, 26, and 30 over Subramanian and Hiller
We cannot sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 13, 26, and 30 over
Subramanian and Hiller, for the reasons articulated at pages 18 and 19 of the Brief. We
are persuaded that the rejection fails to show disclosure or suggestion in the references
for a request specifying a plurality of destinations (claim 13) or instructions for allocating
a virtual circuit to all nodes participating in a multicast (claims 26, 30).
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 13, 26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian and Hiller.
CONCLUSION
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 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Fisk is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8, 12, 18, 23, 25, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Subramanian is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Subramanian and Suzuki is reversed.
The rejection of claims 15, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Subramanian and Fisk is affirmed. The rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian and Fisk is reversed.
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007