Appeal No. 2004-1561
Application No. 09/631,474
ordinary skill in the art the Link Access Procedure on D-channel
(LAPD) format using High Level Data Link Control (HDLC) frames
including a Service Access Point Identifier (SAPI) location. The
examiner’s contentions (answer, pages 7 and 8) to the contrary
notwithstanding, we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
pages 13 and 14) that the examiner is relying on impermissible
hindsight reconstruction to arrive at the conclusion that the
conventional frame included an address field having a SAPI
location.
The obviousness rejection of claim 79 is reversed because
the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to
the skilled artisan the specifically claimed length of the common
control channel.
The obviousness rejection of claims 82 and 83 is sustained
because the appellant has not presented any patentability
arguments for these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 45 through 47,
51 through 54, 57 through 64, 69 through 80 and 82 through 87
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 45, 51, 57,
69 through 76, 80 and 82 through 87, and is reversed as to claims
46, 47, 52 through 54, 58 through 64 and 77 through 79.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007