Ex Parte Tarquini et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-1276                                                                              
                Application 10/001,446                                                                        
                      During examination of patent application, a claim is given its broadest                 
                reasonable construction consistent with the specification.  In re Prater, 415                 
                F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).  "[T]he words of                        
                a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'"                          
                Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed.                        
                Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).  The "ordinary and                         
                customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have                     
                to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,            
                i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."  Id. at 1313, 75            
                USPQ2d at 1326.                                                                               

                      Appellants contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 as                      
                being anticipated by Holloway.  Reviewing the findings of facts cited above,                  
                we do not agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7.  In                          
                particular, we find that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner                      
                failed to make a prima facie showing of anticipation with respect to claims                   
                1-7.  Appellants failed to meet the burden of overcoming that prima facie                     
                showing.  However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in                        
                rejecting claims 8-10 as being anticipated by Holloway.                                       
                      Regarding claim 1, Appellants first argue that Holloway does not                        
                teach or suggest "a management node connected to the network medium and                       
                running an intrusion prevention system management application," as                            
                claimed.  (Br. 4-5.)                                                                          
                      As the Examiner correctly found, the network management station of                      
                Holloway meets the "management node" claim limitation.  (Answer 3, 6;                         


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013