Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 18 depend, it is internally inconsistent to recite “intact” data packets and also
2 an output of an assembled multi-packet communication for each discrete
3 transmission. Evidently, the Examiner is of the view that if the data packets
4 are intact, meaning whole, nothing has to be assembled. The position is
5 misplaced. Although each data packet as recited is “intact,” meaning whole,
6 and need not be assembled, an entire communication is made up of multiple
7 data packets and need to be assembled. That comes from a plain reading of
8 the claim language. There is no internal inconsistency in that regard.
9 For the foregoing reasons, one with ordinary skill in the art would not
10 see any internal inconsistency as is articulated by the Examiner.
11 The Anticipation Rejection of
12 Claims 1, 4-12 and 14-15 over Abraham
13
14 Independent claim 1 requires a step of monitoring network traffic of
15 data packets including receiving the data packets such that the reception is
16 “non-intrusive” with respect to traffic flow of the network. Claim 1 also
17 requires assembling the received data packets to form an assembled multi-
18 packet communication, identifying the source and destination nodes and
19 contextual information based on the assembled multi-packet communication,
20 and applying access rules to the multi-packet communication, all non-
21 intrusively such that traffic flow of data packets is unaffected by the steps.
22 Claims 4-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and thus include all
23 the features of claim 1.
24 Independent claim 15 is an apparatus claim including a number of
25 means-plus-function clause recitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013