Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 set of circumstance is not sufficient. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212
2 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
3
4 F. Analysis
5 The Indefiniteness Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
6 In support of the indefiniteness rejection of claims 15-18, the
7 Examiner explained that in the context of independent claim 15, on which all
8 of claims 16-18 depend, it is internally inconsistent to have continuous data
9 packet flow and absence of impact on network performance on the one hand
10 and interception of the same data packets on the other. The Examiner’s
11 position is that if the data packets are “intercepted” as is recited in claim 15,
12 then it simply cannot be true that the flow of data packet is continuous or
13 that there is no impact on network performance. The concern is misplaced.
14 According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 609 (10th ed. 1999),
15 “intercept” in the context of signal communication can have the meaning of
16 “to receive (a communication or signal directed elsewhere) usu. secretly.”
17 Given that a communication can be intercepted in secret, the meaning of
18 “intercept” is sufficiently broad to cover the case of non-intrusive reception
19 where the flow of data packets are non-interrupted. Therefore, the broadest
20 reasonable interpretation of the term “intercept” does not require interruption
21 of packet flow or a negative impact on network performance. “Intercept” in
22 the context of the invention is like engaging in eavesdropping rather than
23 seizure of a physical object.
24 Further in support of the indefiniteness rejection of claims 15-18, the
25 Examiner explained that in the context of claim 15, on which all claims 16-
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013