Appeal 2007-1238
Application 10/037,595
elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). That is, “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
We begin our analysis by noting that all the independent claims (1, 12
and 24), currently pending before us, require the limitation of allocating a
system-supplied buffer to a server application in response to a request from
the server application. (Br. Appendix A.) As detailed in the Findings of
Fact section above, we found that Nair teaches allocating a memory buffer
space to a protocol software module in order to temporarily store therein a
received data frame and for providing shared access to said buffer space to
the protocol software modules. (Findings 6 and 7.) Further, we found that
Nair teaches that the software modules are higher layer protocol modules
that are serviced by ATM drivers. (Finding 5.) It is our view that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized from Nair’s
disclosure that the protocol software modules are allocated buffer space to
store data frames before they are forwarded to the their destination via the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013