Appeal 2007-1238
Application 10/037,595
“the buffer [used by the network protocol software modules] is no
longer needed.” Clearly, the operations performed by the server
application are distinct from those used to manage a buffer within
different layers of the protocol stack. The present claims, however,
are directed to processing that occurs after data has been processed
through a protocol communications stack, i.e., after the data is, in the
words of Nair, “provided to an application software program.” Thus,
Applicants submit that Nair fails to disclose allocating a system-
supplied buffer to the server application in response to a request from
a server application. (Id.)
Appellants reiterate these same arguments in the Reply Brief. Particularly,
at page 4 of the Reply Brief, Appellants state the following:
The Examiner maintains the position that Nair’s discussion of the
operations of certain “protocol software modules discloses the method
claimed by Applicants. More specifically, the Examiner suggests that
the term “protocol software modules” (as disclosed in Nair) may be
used interchangeably with that of a “server application” (as claimed
by Applicants). Respectfully, Applicants disagree. The “protocol
software modules” discussed in Nair are limited to TCP (and lower)
layers of a TCP/IP stack and further, Nair expressly distinguishes the
operations of these “protocol software modules” from those of a high
level application (e.g., the server application claimed by Applicants).
In response, the Examiner contends that the protocol software modules
in Nair, similarly to the server applications of the claimed invention, access
the allocated memory buffers via a protocol module for the application layer.
Therefore, the combination of Nair with Beighe does render the claimed
invention unpatentable. (Answer 14 and 15.)
ISSUES
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013