Appeal No. 2007-0028
Application No. 10/694,277
address and a hardware physical address to the source host computer.” Appellant
argues (reply brief, page 8) that “Finlayson does not describe an instance where the
reply address relates to anything other than either the source and the responder and,
for this reason, the art, even if combined per the Examiner, does not show the
elements of claim 30.” We agree with appellant’s argument. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 30, 31, 42 through 45, 49 through 60, 66 through
69, 73 and 74 is reversed because the reply to the source and responder computers
in Finlayson does not include a physical hardware address of a link layer computer
as required by all of the claims on appeal.
The obviousness rejections of claims 32 through 37 and 61 through 63 are
reversed because the teachings of Krause, Hoffman and Wright fail to cure the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Templin and Finlayson.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 30 through 37, 42 through 46,
49 and 50 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 30 through
37, 42 through 45, 49 through 63, 66 through 69, 73 and 74 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007