Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
has found: “[i]nherency … may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49
USPQ2d 1949, 1951 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). We
further find the Examiner has failed to point to a specific disclosure in
Gbadegesin where program instructions transfer a database to the network
controller, as required by the language of claim 22. Thus, we find the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for
independent claim 22.
Claim 23
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 23 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Gbadegesin in view of
Bommareddy.
We note that we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 22 as being anticipated by Gbadegesin supra. Because
dependent claim 23 contains all the limitations of independent claim 22, we
will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Claims 2, 6, 14, and 19
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 6,
14, and 19 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Gbadegesin in view
of Bommareddy.
Appellants argue that the combination of Gbadegesin and
Bommareddy does not disclose or suggest performing packet modification
for connection forwarding within a network controller of a server as recited
in independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 (Br. 11-12).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013