Appeal No. 2006-0252 7
Application No. 09/755,564
With respect to dependent claim 5, appellants argue that
Denker fails to show the step of claim 5. Specifically,
appellants argue that the portions of Denker cited by the
examiner do not show updating a PRN generator at a maximum rate
as claimed [brief, pages 18-19]. The examiner responds that the
rate at which the secret is updated in Denker is in accordance
with the transmission protocol and not at a maximum rate as
argued [answer, pages 11-12].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
5 for the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer.
With respect to independent claim 7, appellants argue that
Denker fails to show the last step of claim 7. Specifically,
appellants argue that the portions of Denker cited by the
examiner do not show evaluating the Initial Sequence number
Receiving side and allocating resources in the manner claimed
[brief, pages 19-21]. The examiner disagrees [answer, page 12].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 7. Appellants’ argument are directed to the TCP2E protocol
of Denker. As noted above, we rely on the TCP2B protocol of
Denker. Denker clearly teaches in this protocol that resources
are not allocated to the connection until the received ACK
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007