Appeal No. 2006-2430
Application No. 10/003,747
appellant relies on the arguments presented in response to the rejection of base claims
1 and 9. (Brief at 8.) Since appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate error in the
rejection of the dependent claims, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-4 and 10-13.
However, for the reasons expressed by appellant at pages 8 and 9 of the Brief,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, nor of depending claims 18 and 19. The
statement of the rejection of claim 17 does not address all the limitations of claim 17 but
seems to address limitations from some other claim. Moreover, claim 17 relates to an
intrusion prevention system (Fig. 6) as applied to a specific network stack (Fig. 3) that is
not described in the applied prior art. We do not find disclosure or suggestion in Vaidya
or Holland for at least an intrusion prevention system transport service provider layer as
required by the claim. Further, as appellant indicates, the “filter” relied upon by the
rejection is a packet filter 37 (Holland Fig. 2) in a prior art system that, according to
Holland’s teachings, contains significant drawbacks (e.g., col. 5, l. 8 et seq.).
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 5-9, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Vaidya is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2-4, 10-13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vaidya and Holland is affirmed with respect to claims 2-4 and 10-13
but reversed with respect to claims 17-19.
The examiner’s decision is thus affirmed-in-part.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007