Appeal 2007-1276
Application 10/001,446
data frames transmitted across the network medium," as claimed. The
Examiner found that the network management station met the "intrusion
protection system appliance" limitation. (Answer 5, 7.) But as Appellants
correctly point out, there is no indication that the network management
station is an intrusion protection system appliance. (Br. 7; Reply Br. 5; see
also FF 5.) Further, Appellants correctly note that the function of filtering
inbound and outbound discovery request frames discussed by the Examiner
at page 5 of the Answer is performed by the managed hub rather than by the
network management station. (Br. 7, Reply Br. 5; see also FF 2-5.) Thus,
Holloway does not teach or suggest "a network-based intrusion protection
system appliance dedicated to filtering inbound and outbound data frames
transmitted across the network medium," as claimed.
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8, and we find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting them for the same reason as discussed with respect to
claim 8.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Holloway.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that:
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 for anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10 for anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013