Appeal 2007-0980
Application 10/097,950
NEC About SOCKS, Feb 04, 2001,
http://web.archive.org/web/20010204052600/www.socks.nec.com/aboutsoc
ks.html (last visited Aug. 2, 2005).
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by SOCKS version 5.
2. Claims 4, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over SOCKS version 5 and Safadi.
OPINION
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with
evidence or argument shifts to the applicant. After evidence or argument is
submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the
totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The § 102 rejection contends that claim 1 (Answer 3-4) and the
remainder of the independent claims (id. at 5) are anticipated by SOCKS
version 5.1 Appellants submit that the claims require a split proxy server in
a private portion of a data communications network (e.g., behind a firewall)
and a split proxy client disposed external to the private portion (e.g., on the
1 The Examiner denominates the rejection as being over “NEC socks version
5,” which seems to relate to a rejection under § 102(b) over a prior art
“printed publication.” The rejection thus may be viewed as a multiple-
reference § 102 rejection, over “NEC About Socks” as further explained by
the Leech reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013