Appeal 2007-0980
Application 10/097,950
other side of the firewall). (Br. 6.) According to Appellants, the
conventional SOCKS server and the SOCKS client reside within the “private
portion” of a network (e.g., on the same side of a firewall). (Id.) Further,
according to Appellants, since the SOCKS client is implemented between
the application and the transport layer, as shown in SOCKS version 5, both
the conventional SOCKS server and the SOCKS client reside within the
“private portion” of a network (i.e., are not separated by a firewall). (Id. at
6-7.) Appellants also argue that the conventional SOCKS protocol,
consistent with the applied prior art, is discussed at pages 2 and 3 of the
instant Specification. (Id. at 5.)
We have studied the evidence relied upon by the rejection in light of
the Examiner’s further findings (Answer 7-10). However, we are
constrained to agree with Appellants that, notwithstanding the Answer’s
characterization, the references are far from “clear” in describing separation
of a SOCKS client and a SOCKS server in accordance with the instant
claims.
There is no express description in the references of the type of
separation required by the claims. The Examiner’s interpretation of what the
references do disclose seems to be reasonable in many respects. Appellants’
interpretation of the disclosures also seems to be reasonable in many
respects. Since an Examiner’s interpretation of what a reference describes is
entitled to more weight than attorney arguments, we would be inclined to
affirm the rejection if the applied references were the only evidence to
evaluate.
However, there is evidence in the record upon which Appellants rely,
in rebuttal, that the Examiner seems not to address. Appellants’
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013