Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 make up for the deficiencies discussed above regarding the application of
2 Abraham to independent claims 1 and 11. On that basis alone, the
3 obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3 and 13 cannot be sustained. In any
4 event, however, as will be explained below, neither Lodin nor Stein
5 discloses what the Examiner has relied on those references to show.
6 Claim 2 requires that the receiving and assembling steps be executed
7 at a network element outside of the direct path from source nodes to
8 destination nodes, and claim 13 requires the monitoring and information
9 acquiring steps to include receiving and assembling data packets at a node
10 outside of the direct path of the intended transmissions. On page 36 of the
11 Answer, the Examiner states: “Lodin was provided to teach typical LAN
12 and network configuration that provides a means of monitoring and
13 controlling network transmission that is not within a direct line with a
14 workstation/computer.” Also on page 36 of the Answer, the Examiner
15 states:
16 Figure 4 of Lodin, shows a more detailed view of
17 how firewall, host, servers, administrators etc. may be
18 located such that they are not in the direct line of
19 transmission. The screened subnet places the
20 transmission outside of the direct path of the
21 firewall/bastion and only allowed selected data to pass
22 (Lodin fig. 4). Thereby, allowing for the transmission of
23 the network to be monitored and routed without passing
24 directly through a firewall.
25
26 All above-quoted statements are incorrect insofar as they suggest that in
27 Lodin access control of a transmission is not implemented within the direct
28 line of communication between the source node and the destination node of
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013