Appeal No. 2006-1734
Application 09/855,624
those of independent claim 15. No arguments are present in the reply brief
as to independent claim 15 and the reply brief appears to generally reargue
the positions set forth in the principal brief on appeal as to claim 10.
We recognized and the examiner admits at the bottom of page 7 of the
answer that Aziz does not explicitly use the word “packet” in the discussion
in his patent. Apparently, because of this, appellants’ principal argument in
the appeal brief and reply brief is that because Aziz does not teach packet
communication techniques, Aziz cannot anticipate independent claim 10 on
appeal and effectively independent claim 15 on appeal within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
From our study of the appeal brief and reply brief it appears clear to
us that appellants have not appreciated the teaching value to the artisan of
the whole reference to Aziz. Appellants’ approach appears to rely upon a
literal reading of the reference. Appellants’ positions appear to presuppose
the artisan knows nothing about networks, the Internet, and, for example,
TCP/IP communication techniques taught in Aziz. Notwithstanding
appellants’ own teachings in the specification as filed that the prior art
encompasses these types of networks, appellants argue before us that the
references which have similar teachings do not teach the use of packet
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007