Appeal 2007-1415
Application 09/795,704
an interoperability entity coupled to the router and operating mode
switch, the interoperability entity coupled with the packet stack and with the
circuit stack.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Rydbeck US 6,108,562 Aug. 22, 2000
Mazur US 6,438,115 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
(filed Mar. 8, 1999)
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 18, 20, 33, 34, and 36 stand rejected3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rydbeck in view of Mazur.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
3 We note that the Examiner’s Answer does not expressly state the
Examiner’s grounds of rejection with particularity, but instead refers us to a
final office action from Feb. 2006 for “further details of the rejection”
(Answer 3). Such incorporations by reference, however, are improper under
current practice. See MPEP § 1207.02 (“An examiner's answer should not
refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully
restating the point relied on in the answer.”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013