Appeal No. 2006-0697
Reexamination 90/006,402
Only those pages relied on by the examiner in support of the rejections are in the record.
Based on the foregoing, the examiner’s position stands unrebutted with regard to the
meaning of “datagram” and “datagram service” as would be understood by one with ordinary
skill in the art. In any event, and in the alternative, even assuming as the appellant has argued
that a datagram structure may be different for a variety of transmission methods all of which may
use a datagram for transmission, that is not inconsistent with the examiner’s determination that a
datagram is a packet that includes both data and routing or address information and that a
datagram service provides transmission of data packets by individually routing each packet
based on the routing or address information in the packet. For instance, nothing precludes a
transmission method that is not a datagram service from using a datagram for transmission. In
that case, a datagram packet would simply be regarded as an ordinary data packet without the
routing and address information. The routing or address information need not be used.
Nonetheless, the rejections on appeal cannot be sustained. The claims on appeal are
more specific than merely requiring the sending of data packets by use of a datagram service.
The claims on appeal all require three levels of intelligent routing devices, which in this case
means that each of the three must read destination address information contained in a received
data packet and make a decision on where to route the packet based on the destination address
information. If Chan can properly be relied on to satisfy this feature then at each of the Level-0,
Level-1, and Level-2 routing networks of Chan a datagram being transmitted must be examined
for its routing and address information in order for subsequent routing to be determined. The
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007