Appeal 2006-2621
Application 09/993,320
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are:1
Treu 5,245,615 Sep. 14, 1993
Ha US 6,175,919 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Ishibashi US 6,654,820 B1 Nov. 25, 2003
(filed Mar. 31, 2000)
Itoh US 6,795,912 B1 Sep. 21, 2004
(filed Sep. 27, 2000)
Douglas E. Comer (Comer), Computer Networks And Internets, Second
Edition, Prentice Hall, 156-58, 515 (1999).
The Examiner rejected claims 27-29, 32, 75-77, 79, and 80 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Ha. The Examiner further
rejected claims 1-26, 30, 31, 33-40, 69-74, 78, and 81 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Ha alone with
respect to claims 33 and 78, adds Itoh to Ha with respect to claims 1-5, 7,
10, 12, 13, 15-19, 30, 69-73, and 81, adds Ishibashi to Ha and Itoh with
respect to claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 74, adds Treu to Ha and Itoh with respect to
claim 14, and adds Ishibashi to Ha with respect to claim 31. Further, the
Examiner adds Itoh and the admitted prior art with respect to claims 20-21,
23, 25, and 26, adds Ishibashi to Ha, Itoh, and the admitted prior art with
respect to claim 24, adds Comer to Ha and Itoh with respect to claims 34-37,
39, and 40, and adds Ishibashi to Ha, Itoh, and Comer with respect to claim
38.
With respect to appealed claims 27-29, 32, 75-77, 79, and 80, the
Examiner contends that Ha discloses all of the claimed limitations so as to
1 In addition, the Examiner relies on Appellants’ admissions as to the prior
art at pars. [0003] and [0007] of the Specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013