Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 4
Application No. 08/885,817
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• claims 1 and 3
• claims 2, 11, 15, 25, 34, and 35
• claim 4
• claim 5
• claims 6, 21, 30, and 31
• claims 7-10, 19, 20, 28, and 29
• claim 12
• claim 13
• claims 14, 17, 22, 32, and 33
• claim 16
• claims 18, 26, and 27
• claims 23 and 24.
A. CLAIMS 1 AND 3
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the points of contention therebetween. Observing that "Aziz discloses that
encrypting and decrypting nodes I (the sender) and J (the receiver) can be firewalls
leading into private networks 22 and 30 (Fig. 2 . . . and col. 6, line 58 - col 7, line 9) and
that node J delivers the packet 'to an appropriate local transport entity, or other
outbound interface' (col 11, lines 9-13)," (Supp. Examiner's Answer2 at 12), the
rejection over Aziz and Herz, (id. at 9), was also in error. Therefore, we omit claim 31
from our statement of the rejection.
2We rely on and refer to the supplemental examiner's answer, (Paper No. 21),
which "replaces the previous Examiner's Answer of December 17, 2001, in which the
Examiner inadvertently omitted responses to the Appellant's arguments pertaining to
[c]laims 14-16." (Supp. Examiner's Answer at 1.) The original examiner's answer was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007