Appeal 2007-1238
Application 10/037,595
ATM protocol stack. Particularly, the ordinary skilled artisan would have
aptly appreciated that the disclosed protocol software modules, which
operate on higher layers of the OSI model, are capable of performing the
same functions of Appellants’ server applications. That is, both the
disclosed protocol software modules and the server applications can request
buffer space to store a receive data frame, and they can subsequently
forward said data frame to its destination via an upper layer protocol.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1
through 3, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 15 through 21, and 24 through 31 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nair and Beighe.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 22, 23, and 32 through 34 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nair, Beighe, and Putcha. Therefore,
they fall together with independent claims 12 and 24. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
failed to establish that claims 1 through 3, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 15 through
21, and 24 through 31 are unpatentable over the combination of Nair and
Beighe under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Further, Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner failed to establish that claims 22, 23, and 32 through 34 are
unpatentable over the combination of Nair, Beighe, and Putcha under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013