Appeal No. 2003-0985
Application No. 09/221,665
OPINION
The instant appeal turns on interpretation of the term “assured pipeline,” recited
in all the independent claims. According to the statement of the section 102 rejection
over Aziz, the reference discloses an “assured pipeline” at column 4, line 40 through
column 6, line 2. (Answer at 4 and 5.) According to appellants, however, the relevant
term is described in the present application, “consistent with how assured pipelines are
known in the industry.” (Brief at 7.) Further, according to appellants, an “assured
pipeline” enables placing external processes into external domains, and restricting
traffic between domains. (See id.)
The examiner counters that Aziz teaches a means for establishing an “assured
pipeline,” in that the reference describes a firewall server coupled to a private network,
acting as a gatekeeper. The server contains interfaces for encrypting and processing
data traffic. (Answer at 6-7.) The examiner also opines that appellants’ arguments
regarding the steps required in establishing an assured pipeline are not recited in the
claims, and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. (Id. at 7.)
Appellants quote (Brief at 6) and rely upon a teaching in the instant specification.
“The step of establishing an assured pipeline includes the steps of placing processes
within domains, wherein the step of placing processes within domains includes the step
of assigning processes received from the external network to an external domain,
assigning types to files and restricting access by processes within the external domain
to certain file types.” (Spec. at 9, ll. 19-23.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007