Appeal No. 2003-0985
Application No. 09/221,665
processes received from an external network to an external domain, assigning types to
files, and restricting access by processes within the external domain to certain file
types, which, according to this record, is required in the establishment of assured
pipelines.
We thus cannot sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 1 through 6.
A similar problem in claim interpretation is reflected in the examiner’s apparent
reading of a “trusted subsystem” as requiring no more than a firewall server having
encrypting circuitry or software. (Answer at 9.) Since Aziz does not describe the
systems as including trusted subsystems, the rejection must be based on the view that
Aziz discloses circuitry or software that the artisan would recognize as comprising a
trusted subsystem. However, the rejection does not provide evidence in support of the
position, such as a relevant entry from a technical dictionary reflecting the artisan’s
understanding of the term. Cf. In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (in a determination of patentability “the Board must point to some
concrete evidence in the record in support of...[the]...findings”).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007