Appeal 2007-1061
Application 09/967,601
ANALYSIS
Appellant correctly argues (Br. 10) that “the Hipp reference discloses
a system that ‘fools’ one of the applications into believing that it is receiving
data over the desired port, while in fact the data has been redirected, and is
being received through an entirely different port.” We additionally agree
with appellant’s arguments (Br. 11) that “the Hipp reference makes
absolutely no mention of either send threads or receive threads, as recited in
claims 1, 9, and 16.” On the other hand, the Examiner has correctly argued
that Hipp describes “a virtual port” as broadly set forth in claims 23 to 25
and 27 to 30 (Answer, 7 and 8). The “virtual port” set forth in claims 23 to
25 and 27 to 30 does not preclude the use of a second port with an intended
first port.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 1 to
22 because the “virtual port” in Hipp does not make use of send and receive
threads. Anticipation of claims 23 to 25 and 27 to 30 has been established
by the examiner because Hipp describes “a virtual port,” albeit one that
makes use of more than one port.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 25 and 27 to 30 is reversed as
to claims 1 to 22, and is affirmed as to claims 23 to 25 and 27 to 30.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013