Appeal 2007-1127
Application 09/800,112
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thornton US 6,363,065 B1 Mar. 26, 2002
Matsumoto US 2001/0026545 A1 Oct. 4, 2001
Additional prior art cited by the Board is:
Baroudi US 6,430,196 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious. More specifically, Appellants contend that (Suppl. Br. 5):
Nowhere in Thorton [sic] can one skilled in the art find
any teaching or suggestion for use of a Protocol Header as
defined relative to claim 22. Claim 22 requires a Protocol
Header that has an indication of Protocol Type for denoting
whether the message is an IP message or an encapsulated
non-IP message, the Protocol Header encapsulating the
message. This is important for identifying which of multiple
messaging protocols is contained within the encapsulated
message (i.e. an IP message or a non-IP (e.g. legacy-PBX)
message). By defining the Protocol Type within the Protocol
Header, call control functionality from legacy-PBX systems
may be extended to an Ethernet or LAN-implemented PBX.
Absent the teaching or suggestion for encapsulating a message
with such a Protocol Header, claims 22-41 are not obvious in
view of the proposed combination of references.
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
incorporate a Protocol Type because (Answer 12):
“[I]t is very well known in the networking art that there is a
Protocol field, which specifies the type of the encapsulated
protocol, in the IP packet header as defined by the TCP/IP
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013