Appeal 2007-0834 Application 09/757,913 before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the Examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 and 12 We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Chen in view of Maggenti. Appellants argue that the Examiner does not make any argument, or cite either reference [i.e., Chen or Maggenti] as disclosing taking a snapshot of the old compressor and the decompressor context information and delivering it to the new network entity after stopping the context information [updating] (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that Chen teaches the packet with its header (i.e., where context information is part of the header) is sent from one base station to another. The Examiner argues it is inherent that updating of any type within a packet must be stopped prior to sending the packets. The Examiner reasons that if packets are not stopped, they cannot have information changed within the packet (such as flags within the headers). In addition, the Examiner asserts that Chen also teaches the use of buffers to store packets if needed prior to sending out the packets. The Examiner concludes that this further indicates that packets (i.e., including header information, such as context information) are stopped prior to being sent out (Answer 16-17). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013