Appeal 2007-0457
Application 10/652,267
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellants. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
As set forth above, representative claim 1 requires temporarily storing
an incoming packet in an internal elastic buffer and processing the packet
without reassembly. As detailed in the findings of fact section above, we
have found that Boucher (1 and 2) discloses an ASIC 400 chip for
processing incoming data packets. (Findings of fact 7 and 8). We have
found, however, that Boucher’s processing of the data packets in the ASIC
chip involves (1) synchronizing the received packet data; (2) assembling the
frames of the packet; and then (3) transferring the synchronized/assembled
packet data to an external buffer. (Finding of facts 9 through 14). In light of
these findings, it is our view that Boucher does not teach processing an
incoming packet without reassembly.
Further, we have found that Boucher’s external buffer holds each
received piece of packet data until it receives all data pertaining to the packet
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013