Appeal 2007-1238
Application 10/037,595
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relies upon the
following prior art:
Beighe US 6,055,576 Apr. 25, 2000
Nair US 2003/0217184 Nov. 20, 2003
(filed Dec. 30, 2000)
Putcha US 6,822,966 Nov. 23, 2004
(filed Mar. 1, 1999)
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 15 through 21, and 24 through
31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Nair and Beighe.
B. Claims 22, 23, and 32 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nair, Beighe, and
Putcha.
Appellants contend1 that the combination of Nair and Beighe does not
render the claimed invention unpatentable. (Br. 13.) Particularly,
Appellants contend that Nair does not teach or suggest allocating a system-
supplied buffer to a server application in response to a request from the
server application, as recited in independent claim 1. More specifically,
Appellants assert the following:
“Because Nair is directed to the use of a localized buffer pool used
exclusively by the protocol modules, Nair fails to disclose a system
supplied buffer being allocated to a server application. In fact, Nair
discloses that once the data frame is provided to the server application
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2005). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368,
69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013