Appeal No. 2006-1030
Application No. 09/895,233
inherency arguments in the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the Answer clearly answer the
appellants’ remarks at page 12 of the Brief since the reference clearly indicates to the artisan that
it utilizes packet switching for its internal communications.
The portion of the Answer we reproduced earlier in this opinion also addresses
appellants’ argument in the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12 of the Brief that Shah does not
teach “each one of said plurality of virtual representations having a unique access control level.”
To the extent broadly recited in the claims on appeal, we agree with the examiner’s view that
different service levels are taught and supported within the teachings of the reference. We also
agree with the examiner’s observation that appellants have not defined the meaning of “access
control levels” or “unique access control levels” within the specification as filed. Appellants’
discussion of the prior art at Specification, page 2, lines 24 and 25, indicates that the “end nodes
are grouped into partitions and access is controlled through the P_Key.” It appears that the
examiner is correct that the Specification of appellants’ contribution in the art has no definable
distinction of the term “unique access control level.” Again, it is worth emphasizing that Shah
operates within the same InfiniBand architecture as disclosed. According to Shah’s contribution
at the top of column 9, the architecture also permits programming service levels to virtual lane
mapping tables within the switches. We therefore sustain the rejection of all claims rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007