Appeal 2007-0708
Application 09/881,367
for processing the parameters of the incoming frame. (Answer 9-12.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ogawa
and Wilford to yield the invention, as recited in claims 18 through 20. (Id.)
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that Ogawa
anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), when
Ogawa teaches a receiving circuit that processes an incoming network
frame to produce an outgoing network frame to be used by an external
circuit?
(2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have
found that the disclosure of Ogawa in combination with knowledge of
the prior art or the disclosure of Wilford renders the claimed invention
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
The invention
1. Appellant invented a method and system for bridging an incoming
packet from a first network (104) to a second network (106). (Specification
5.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013