Appeal No. 2003-0481
Application No. 09/222,388
995, 217 USPQ 1,6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when determining obviousness, the
claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
‘heart’ of the invention.” Para-Ordnance MFG. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F3d
1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
The examiner states on page 4 of the answer that Kotchey teaches:
Initiating an automatic query discovery mechanism comprising means for
generating a requested signal... with an IPX number of zero as the source and
destination... to determine client’s... network number accuracy.
where said query initiating client listening and waiting to locate an IPX
reply packet containing a predetermined destination address.
Further, on page 6 of the answer, in response to appellant’s arguments that the
step of “initiating a passive listener” is not taught by Kotchey, the examiner states:
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “initiating a
passive listener to locate an IPX packet containing a predetermined destination
address eliminating the operation of issuing a RIP general request…” are not
recited in the claims.
We concur with the examiner that there is no limitation in the claims specifically directed
to eliminating an RIP request. However, claims 1 and 7 clearly call for passive listening
which does necessarily preclude any active steps to determine the network number.
The examiner states, on page 4 of the answer, that Kotchey initiates a query and then
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007