Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 rule to the assembled discrete multi-packet transmission where the data flow
2 is unhindered if the result of rule application indicates unrestricted access.
3 Thus, for claim 15 the controlling of access is also non-intrusive in case the
4 access is determined to be unrestricted.
5 More importantly, the step of applying access rules of claim 1 is
6 applied to an assembled multi-packet communication, rather than any data
7 packet individually, and the function of access control of claim 15 is based
8 on matching access rules to information gleaned from the assembled multi-
9 packet communication and discrete transmission.
10 Similarly, independent claim 11 requires a monitoring and an
11 acquiring step which together include receiving and assembling data packets
12 to form an “assembled multi-packet communication” for each transmission,
13 and applying access rules to information determined from the “assembled
14 multi-packet communication,” specifically information relating to at least
15 Layers 2, 3 and 7 of the ISO model. Claim 11, unlike claims 1 and 15
16 however, does not require its monitoring, acquiring, receiving, assembling,
17 and applying steps to be non-intrusive. Claim 12, which depends from claim
18 11, recites that the monitoring and the acquiring steps, which together
19 include the receiving and assembling steps, are executed non-intrusively.
20 Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and claim 14 depends from claim 11.
21 With respect to Abraham as anticipatory prior art, the Examiner has
22 not established that it discloses the assembling feature required by claims 1,
23 11 and 15, and the subsequent application of access rules to the assembled
24 multi-packet communication (claims 1 and 11) or the subsequent controlling
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013