Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 and 15). The Examiner has not shown where in Engel is there a disclosure
2 of assembling data packets to form a multi-packet communication to which
3 is applied an access rule or to the acquired information which is applied an
4 access rule. Moreover, it appears from col. 6, lines 46-55 of Engel,
5 reproduced below, that the monitoring and application of an access rule is on
6 a packet by packet basis:
7 The method of determining whether to terminate the
8 transmission can be based on any of the data bits inside the
9 packet 20. For example, the access controller 16a can make its
10 decision based upon the contents of the source field 20a,
11 destination field 20b, or protocol type field 20c, as well as
12 network addresses or transport and higher layer service requests
13 contained in the data field 20d. Stated another way, any logical
14 test can be used to evaluate any of the bits in the packet 20 to
15 determine its eligibility for transmission.
16
17 Figures 1-3 of Engel, cited by the Examiner, also do not illustrate any
18 application of an access rule to an assembled multi-packet communication.
19 Rather, Figure 1 illustrates the internal fields of a data packet and Figures 2
20 and 3 illustrate the detection and decision making with respect to each
21 individual data packet.
22 On page 31 of the Answer, the Examiner states: “Since modern
23 networks routinely perform packet segmentation and assembly, and the very
24 packets and protocol disclosed by appellant are used in the invention of
25 ‘Engel ‘984, it is therefore inherent that Engel ‘984 makes use of this well
26 known packetization and assembly of data transmission units.” The
27 conclusion of inherency is both misapplied and without merit. First, the
28 context is misplaced. The Examiner has misapplied what is commonly done
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013