Appeal No. 2002-1707 Page 5
Application No. 09/211,527
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Shewd "relates . . . to a method for controlling computer network
security." Col. 1, ll. 12-13. The examiner relies on "column 13 lines 6-19" and "column .
. . 14 line 40-15 line 42" of the reference to teach storing policies in, and providing
session dependent data to, a network device. (Final Rej. at 3.) These passages
disclose that in a computer network "[e]ach firewall maintains a rule base that instructs
the firewall how to handle both inbound and outbound communications between
network objects. . . ." Col. 14, ll. 62-65. When Shewd's host1 initiates a session with its
host2 by sending a packet to the latter, for example, "[f]irewall1 will intercept the packet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007