Appeal 2007-0210
Application 10/167,359
Transmit Controller 120 (read as the claimed Update Manager)
references a list of packets to be transferred, transmit list 130
(the claimed “listing”). (Answer 4). We find, however, that this
list is not obtained by an update manager accessible by the
processor on the receiving side of the system. The list remains
on the sending side of the system, contrary to the claimed
limitation.
4. When the objection to the rejection noted in paragraph three
above was raised by the Appellants, Examiner adjusted the
rationale of the rejection. Examiner notes, in the Answer page
8, that “Doshi teaches in col. 4, line 33-62, fig. 1, element 205
stores the packet in receiver buffer 210, see col. 4, l. 4-14, and
periodically receiver 200 sends to transmitter 100 and 120
(element 100 corresponding to a processor adapted to receive
update and element 120 corresponding to update manager) a
status control message (corresponding to listing of a plurality of
update) indicating the list of sequence numbers that receiver
received correctly.” (Quote adjusted for clarity). This message,
says the Examiner, is sent prior to sending a later section of the
full update.
5. We have carefully reviewed this new rationale for the rejection,
but find that it still fails to meet the claimed limitations. The
clear meaning of the limitation is that the manager is adapted to
obtain a listing of each of the data packets of the update prior to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013