Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
to have a (global) internet address. Therefore, there would have had to have been a
protocol in place to receive (and transmit) data according thereto. Therefore, we find
that Burns suggests the use of the internet as a means of communication. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
implement an addressing routine for adding a destination internet address to the data.
Appellant argues that the internet address in independent claim 22 is a “piece of
data that is handled by the IP stack (OSI layer 3).” (See brief at page 12.) Here, we
find that with the use of the internet as clearly suggested by Burns there would have
been such an internet address required and skilled artisans would have appreciated
such a need in the design of the internet based system. Therefore, we do not find
appellant’s argument persuasive.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-10 and 26-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. A New Ground of Rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 has been entered under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13,
2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September
7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007