Appeal 2007-0980
Application 10/097,950
Specification at page 2 describes the SOCKS protocol as defined in “RFC
1928.” The Specification notes (3: 3-5) that SOCKS has been used as a
network firewall, generic application proxy, in virtual private networks, and
in extranet applications. The Specification further states, however, that:
[W]hile the conventional SOCKS proxy implementation
addresses the need for a client computing device within the
Intranet to access computing devices in the global Internet, the
conventional SOCKS proxy likewise does not handle the
inverse situation where an external client in the Internet
requires access to computing resources within the Intranet.
(Specification 3: 11-15.)
We understand Appellants’ present arguments (and interpretation of
the references) to be consistent with the description of the “conventional”
SOCKS implementation as described in the Specification. The description
of the “conventional” implementation provides evidence of the SOCKS
protocol at the time of invention, as understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art.
We cannot say with certainty that the Examiner is incorrect in the
proffered interpretation of the applied references. However, we are
persuaded by Appellants that the evidence provided by the Examiner is
insufficient to demonstrate prima facie unpatentability of the claimed subject
matter, in light of Appellants’ evidence in rebuttal. Moreover, we presume
that a reference that expressly describes the claimed separation of the client
and server could have been (and could be) readily produced, if the protocol
as understood at the time of invention “clearly” contemplated what
Appellants now claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013