Ex Parte McMillen et al - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2004-1337                                                                              
            Application No. 09/783,923                                                                        


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   Appellants’ invention relates to multicast transmissions in a multistage                   
            interconnect network.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading            
            of exemplary claim 154 , which is reproduced in the appendix to the brief.                        
                   The reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed              
            claims is:                                                                                        
            McMillen et al. (McMillen)             5,321,813                 Jun. 14, 1994                    
                   Claims 154-165 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same                   
            invention as that of claims 86-95 of prior U.S. Patent No. 5,321,813.                             
                   Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and              
            appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's              
            answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Oct. 3, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of             
            the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Jul. 16, 2003) for appellants’      
            arguments thereagainst.                                                                           
                                                  OPINION                                                     
                   In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to            
            appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the             
            respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of             
            our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                              



                                                      2                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007