Appeal 2007-2120
Application 09/911,149
In any event, even if Carman uses only the SPI as a pointer to the
SAD to retrieve associated SAs, the reference stills fall short of assigning
the specific memory address value of the received and stored SA as an SPI
value as claimed. At best, the SPI value in Carman is related to or
corresponds with the memory address value of the stored SA in the SAD in
some way. But the exact relationship or correspondence is unclear from the
reference. The claims, however, require more than mere correspondence.
Once received and stored, the SA’s specific memory address value is then
assigned as the SPI value itself. Carman simply does not teach or suggest
this feature.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 or 36. We will also not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4 for similar reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections
With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (1) claims 2,
6, and 8 as unpatentable over Carman and Badamo, (2) claims 3 and 7 as
unpatentable over Carman, Badamo, and RFC791, and (3) claim 5 as
unpatentable over Carman and Nessett, we find the addition of Badamo,
RFC791, and Nessett do not cure the deficiencies of Carman noted above
with respect to independent claims 1 and 36. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections are also not sustained.
Duplicate Claims
Lastly, we note that claims 2-4 are identical to claims 6-8.
Accordingly, the Examiner is reminded that if claims 1-4 are ultimately
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013