Appeal 2007-1047
Application 09/944,892
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21 as
being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Bertin. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants state that they do not provide a special definition of the
claim term “active network.” Instead, Appellants assert that the term “active
network” must be given its plain meaning, i.e., it must be read as it would be
interpreted by those of ordinary skill in the art (Br. 9, ¶ 3, emphasis added).
Referring to the RULE 132 affidavit of record 1 and evidence of prior
art active networks, 2 Appellants argue that the meaning of the term “active
network” given by those of ordinary skill in the art is clear, as follows:
[A]n active network is a network including nodes capable
of performing custom operations on the messages that
pass through the nodes; does not require a central server
1 See RULE 1.132 Affidavit, p. 3, ¶ 1, i.e., “As understood by those skilled
in the art of computing and networking, an active network is a network in
which the nodes can perform custom operations on the messages that pass
through the nodes. An active network does not require a central server or
computing resource. Active network nodes are aware of the contents of the
messages transported and can participate in the processing and modification
of the messages while they travel through the network.”
2 See Appendices B-I, B-II, B-III, and B-IV attached to the Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013