Ex Parte Davies et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-0997                                                                       
               Application 09/875,670                                                                 

                     The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:          
                     Cheng  US 2001/0032273 A1  Oct. 18, 2001                                         
                     Yamadaji  US 6,694,363 B1   Feb. 17, 2004                                        
                     Claims 1, 3-10, 19, 25-29, 33, and 35-46 stand rejected as being                 
               unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cheng and Yamadaji.                         
                     Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the                  
               Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of the Appellants and the           
               Examiner.                                                                              
                     We reverse.                                                                      

                                               ISSUE                                                  
                     Appellants contend that Cheng’s proxy 320 cannot be equated with                 
               Appellants’ claimed proxy on an IP device such as server 180 because                   
               Cheng states that the IP device does not need to be modified to work with              
               the bridge (Br. 4).  The Examiner refers to the “HAVi To Web” thin glue                
               layer 220 and the “Web To HAVi” thin glue layer 260 in Cheng and argues                
               that the proxy on these glue layers is the same as the proxy on an IP device           
               (Answer 9).  Therefore, the issue on appeal turns on whether a                         
               preponderance of the evidence before us shows that the combination of the              
               prior art teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter and specifically an IP        
               device including a proxy that communicates with a server on a HAVi                     
               network device which acts as a controller.                                             






                                                  3                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013