Appeal 2007-0708
Application 09/881,367
suggestion within the prior art, within the nature of the problem to be solved,
or within the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention, to look to particular sources, to select particular elements, and
to combine them as combined by the inventor. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234
F.3d 654, 665, 57 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .
“[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion
may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is
technology-independent and the combination of references results in a
product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger,
cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient . . . .
In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan
possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the
prior art references.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v.
C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
As set forth above, claim 1 requires (1) reading a pointer for a first
parameter within an incoming packet, (2) processing the first parameter in
accordance with the pointer to produce a second parameter, and (3)
presenting an outgoing packet containing the second parameter for the
second network. As detailed in the findings of fact section above, we have
found that Ogawa teaches a receiving circuit (e.g., a bridge) for processing
parameters including an offset/flag or an object pointer pertaining to an
incoming frame. (Findings of fact 5 and 6.) We have also found that Ogawa
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013