Appeal 2007-0457
Application 10/652,267
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Boucher(2).1
B. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boucher(2).
Appellants contend2 that Boucher does not anticipate claims 1 through
5 and 7 through 33. Particularly, Appellants contend that Boucher does not
fairly teach or suggest a TEEC that processes an incoming packet without
reassembly, and that temporarily buffers the packet in an internal elastic
buffer. (Br. 8 and 13; Reply Br. 4 and 7). The Examiner, in contrast,
contends that Boucher teaches the limitations of representative claim 1 as a
NIC card for processing incoming packets, and as a data synchronization
buffer for buffering the packets. (Answer 8). The Examiner therefore
concludes that Boucher anticipates representative claim 1. Appellants
further contend that Boucher does not render claim 6 unpatentable since it
does not teach that the NIC uses only the elastic buffer to temporarily store
the packet. (Br. 25-26). In response, the Examiner contends that using only
an elastic buffer to temporarily store packets, as recited in dependent claim
6, is well-known in the art. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would
1 Boucher(2) incorporates by reference the complete disclosure of Boucher
(1). See column 1, lines 34-44.
2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013