Appeal No. 2006-0252 4
Application No. 09/755,564
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is
deemed to be anticipated by the disclosure of Denker [answer,
pages 4-10]. With respect to independent claim 1, appellants
argue that Denker does not anticipate the claim because Denker
does not teach the step of “responsive to receiving an ACK
message, determining whether to establish a transmission control
block for the client unit by evaluating an incremented value of
the Initial Sequence number Receiver side included in the ACK
message.” Specifically, appellants argue that the portions of
Denker cited by the examiner fail to support the examiner’s
findings in support of anticipation [brief, pages 11-15]. The
examiner responds that the incremented Initial Sequence number is
a known element of the standard TCP protocol [answer, page 11].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. It appears to us that appellants’ arguments are based
on their position that the TCP2E protocol of Denker does not meet
the claimed invention, however, we find that the TCP2B protocol
disclosed in Denker does meet the invention of claim 1.
Specifically, Denker discloses that the SYN-ACK message includes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007