Appeal No. 2007-0028
Application No. 10/694,277
Claims 33, 34, 62 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Templin in view of Krause and Hoffman1.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Templin in view of Finlayson and Wright.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 30 through 37, 42
through 46, 49 and 50, and reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 30 through
37, 42 through 45, 49 through 63, 66 through 69, 73 and 74.
In response to all of the rejections on appeal, appellant argues (brief, pages
16 through 19 and 26 through 28; reply brief, pages 5 through 8) that claim 30
recites, among other things, the following:
wherein, responsive to determining that the
destination protocol address does not correspond to the
assigned address of the link layer gateway computer, the
link layer protocol handler determines if a source host
computer which transmitted the received data packet and
1 Since these claims depend from claims 30 and 51, Finlayson should have been
included as a reference in the rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007