Appeal No. 2006-2430
Application No. 10/003,747
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Aug. 3, 2005) and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Jun. 9, 2006) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief and the
Reply Brief (both filed Mar. 16, 2006) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Vaidya.1
Claims 2-4, 10-13, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vaidya and Holland.
OPINION
The examiner finds instant claim 1 to be anticipated (35 U.S.C. § 102) by Vaidya.
As stated at column 4, lines 28 through 30, the Vaidya system monitors all seven layers
of the OSI model, which necessarily includes the three application, transport, and
network data layers of the seven.
Appellant argues (e.g., Brief at 7-8) that the column 4 section of Vaidya does not
disclose or suggest monitoring of the three layers as set forth in claim 1. According to
appellant, Vaidya extracts header information from a data packet, which is not the same
as monitoring layer data by different layers of an intrusion detection system as claimed.
1 Claim 14 is not listed in the examiner’s rejection, but depending claim 16 is. Appellant’s briefs
acknowledge that claim 14 is included in the § 102 rejection over Vaidya.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007