Appeal 2006-3371
Application 09/834,918
ANALYSIS
Although the IP data packet in Walrand visits at least one intermediate
node, the header in the IP data packet only includes a source address, a
destination address and class of service identifier. Appellants correctly
argue that the IP data packet in Walrand consults a routing table at the node,
and not “a list of at least one intermediate node” in the header, to determine
the route of the IP data packet to the address of the destination apparatus.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner because
Walrand lacks intermediate node data in the IP header.
The obviousness of the claimed subject matter has not been
demonstrated by the Examiner because the teachings of the secondary
references to Jorgensen and Narad fail to cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Walrand.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 8 to 13, 20 to 25 and 33 to 37 is
reversed. The obviousness rejections of claims 2 to 7, 14 to 19 and 26 to 32
are reversed.
REVERSED
PGC/ce
SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.
14TH FLOOR
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT
TYSONS CORNER VA 22182
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: September 9, 2013