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