Appeal No. 2007-0028
Application No. 10/694,277
Examiner also fails to provide sufficient clarity of how the art relates at all to these
aspects.”
Turning first to the obviousness-type double patenting rejection, we agree
with the appellant’s argument (brief, pages 27 and 28) that the “reply data packet”
to the source host computer and an “address pairing” are not set forth in claim 1 of
Brewer. On the other hand, we find that the above-quoted excerpt from claim 30 is
found in claims 12 through 15 of Brewer with minor word changes. The minor
word changes between claim 30 on appeal and claims 12 through 15 in Brewer
preclude us from reaching a decision that the claims should have been rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for same invention double patenting. The minor differences
between the claims do not, however, preclude us from reaching the conclusion that
the examiner was correct in making a finding of obviousness-type double
patenting. In summary, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims
30 through 37, 42 through 46, 49 and 50 is sustained.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 30, 31, 42 through 45, 49
through 60, 66 through 69, 73 and 74, the examiner acknowledges (answer, page 5)
that “Templin does not disclose communicating a reply data packet to the source
host computer, where the data packet reply comprises the destination protocol
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007