Appeal 2007-1127
Application 09/800,112
message (e.g. Mitel proprietary Minet (MTS 22) message).
(Specification 2:3-5).
Thornton describes a Protocol field, which specifies the type of the
encapsulated protocol (Col 24, ll. 59-67).
In particular, process 535 accepts incoming IP packets from the
LAN, as supplied by Ethernet driver 533. In that regard, each
of these packets, as conventionally occurs, was encapsulated, as
payload data, within an Ethernet packet and is extracted
therefrom by the Ethernet driver. As such, process 535 routes
the IP packet to either one of the local applications or protocols
for processing, based on a protocol ID and well-known port
number contained within the packet.
Thus, Thornton describes plural protocols and a protocol ID, in the packet,
which denotes whether the encapsulated message (message body) is a first
type of message or a second type of message.
A message body is non-functional descriptive material in that unlike
the Protocol Header it does not change the functionality of the
communication system.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellants bear the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
Matsumoto with those of Thornton.
Appellants may sustain this burden by showing that, where the
Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the Examiner failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show that one having ordinary skill in the art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013