Appeal No. 2003-0425
Application 08/773,692
Appellant argues that neither Baker nor Dascalu teaches
restricting access to certain resources based on (1) the type of
communication protocol and (2) the type of protocol commands
exchanged between the first and second networks. Appellant also
argues that neither Baker nor Dascalu teaches that restricting
access is dynamically based on environmental changes. Appellant
argues that the examiner has failed to provide a proper
motivation for combining the teachings of Baker and Dascalu
[brief, pages 7-13].
The examiner responds that Baker teaches restricting access
based on protocol and that Baker teaches dynamic restricting such
as restrictions based on certain resources, ratings and time of
day. The examiner also responds that protocol commands are
associated with protocols and are inseparable. Thus, the
examiner finds that restricting access based on protocols
necessarily includes the associated protocol commands [answer,
pages 11-13].
Appellant responds that restricting access based on
determination of a specific protocol as taught by Dascalu does
not include restricting access based on protocol commands as
claimed. Appellant argues that the examiner’s findings are
tantamount to a reliance on inherency which is improper [reply
brief].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007