Appeal 2007-1978
Application 10/185,702
adding a header to each one of the packets, the header having a source
and a destination hardware addresses for routing the packets on the switched
network; and
transmitting the packets.
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relies upon the
following prior art:
Beardsley US 6,381,677 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
Bennett US 6,775,707 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
(filed Oct. 15, 1999)
Cesar US 6,836,793 B1 Dec. 28, 2004
(filed Sep. 23, 1998)
Matsunami US 6,851,029 B2 Feb. 01, 2005
(filed Dec. 21, 1999)
Wu US 6,917,967 B2 Jul. 12, 2005
(filed Dec. 13, 2002)
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), as being anticipated by Matsunami.1
B. Claims 5, 15, 25, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Matsunami and Cesar.
C. Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, 27, 36, and 37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Matsunami, Cesar, and Bennett.
1 The Examiner provided Beardsley as evidence of what the term “transfer
length” ordinarily meant to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013