Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 According to claims 2 and 13, the monitoring, receiving, assembling, and
2 information acquiring steps must take place outside of the direct path of
3 communication for the data packets in those communications. The
4 Examiner has failed to demonstrate that that is the case in Stein.
5
6 CONCLUSION
7
8 The indefiniteness rejection of claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
9 second paragraph, is reversed.
10 The rejection of claims 1, 4-12, and 14-15 as anticipated by Abraham
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
12 The rejection of claims 1, 4, 9 and 15 as anticipated by Cirasole under
13 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
14 The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-18 as anticipated by Engel under
15 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
16 The rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Engel under 35 U.S.C.
17 § 103 is reversed.
18 The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 13 as unpatentable over Abraham
19 and Lodin under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
20 The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 13 as unpatentable over Abraham
21 and Stein under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
24
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013