Appeal 2007-1276
Application 10/001,446
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The issue turns on whether
Holloway teaches or suggests each and every limitation of the claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Holloway describes a computer network security system to detect and
prevent intrusion into a Local Area Network (LAN) by an
unauthorized user. (Col. 1, ll. 14-17.) In particular, Holloway teaches
the use of a managed hub to detect and prevent intrusions. (Col. 2, ll.
53-55.) The network has multiple managed hubs. (Col. 4, ll. 51-55.)
2. The system of Holloway transmits a series of frames between the
interconnect devices of the network during different phases of its
operation. (Col. 2, ll. 58-60.) The frames are sent to a "LAN security
2 Except as will be noted in this opinion, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims or related claims in each group. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013