Appeal 2007-0477
Application 10/003,510
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Trcka US 6,453,345 B2 Sep. 17, 2002
4 (filed May 7, 1997)
5 Porras US 6,704,874 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
6 (filed Jul. 25, 2000)
7
8 The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
9 anticipated by Porras.
10 The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
11 as being unpatentable over Porras and Trcka.
12 Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
13 and would not have been obvious. More specifically, Appellants contend:
14 1) As to claims 1-9, that the Examiner relies on the monitoring
15 system 22 of Porras as corresponding to the “intrusion detection
16 application,” but the Examiner offers no support or showing that
17 Porras’s translation module 32 (decode engine) is “integrated within”
18 system 22 as required by claim 1. (Br. 6).
19 2) As to claim 10, that the Examiner again relies on the
20 monitoring system 22 of Porras as corresponding to the “intrusion
21 detection application,” but offers no support or showing that Porras’s
22 system 22 “decod[es] . . . the intrusion-related data” as required by
23 claim 10. Further, module 32 performs this function and module 32 is
24 not part of system 22 of Porras. (Br. 8).
25 3) As to claims 11-16 which depend from claim 10, Trcka does
26 not remedy the defects of Porras. (Br. 8).
27
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013