DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received October 20, 2025 (the Response).
According to Applicant in the Response, “Applicant hereby provisionally elects Species I (FIG. 2) with traverse.” Response 8. Notably, Applicant argues
[t]he Office action has made no required showing that, for instance, “each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search.” See MPEP § 808.02. Therefore, the Office action fails to properly show that the alleged species are independent and distinct, much less that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the Office.
Id.
The Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Thus, the restriction requirement is deemed improper. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is withdrawn in whole and Species II and III are reinstated with Species I. See MPEP § 821.01 (reciting
[i]f the examiner, upon reconsideration, is of the opinion that the requirement for restriction is improper in whole or in part, he or she should clearly state in the next Office action that the requirement for restriction is withdrawn in whole or in part, specify which groups have been reinstated, and give an action on the merits of all the claims directed to the elected invention and any invention reinstated with the elected invention.
).
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed January 25, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.”
Fig. 2, items 200, 202, 204, 206 are reference characters that does not indicate a surface or cross section on which they are placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“end device” (claim 14, line 2).1
Since the claim limitations invoke § 112(f), claims 14–20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: “end devices such as mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, electronic tablets, mixed reality headsets or other wearable electronic devices)” at Spec. ¶ 16.
If Applicant did not intend to have the claim limitations treated under § 112(f), Applicant may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Young
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young et al. (US 2014/0101324 A1; filed Oct. 10, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, while Young teaches a system (fig. 1, item 100) comprising:
a hardware virtual private network (VPN) device (fig. 1, item 118), the hardware VPN device communicatively coupled to an end device (fig. 1, item 130), the hardware VPN device to establish a first VPN tunnel to encrypt data generated by a second VPN tunnel associated with the end device2; and
a transceiver (fig. 1, item 110) communicatively coupled to the hardware VPN device, the transceiver to communicate with a secure network via a wireless communication protocol to cause a VPN server to permit the end device to exchange data with the secure network via the first VPN tunnel and the second VPN tunnel3,
Young does not teach the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for Young’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding claim 5, Young teaches wherein the wireless communication protocol is a 5G communication protocol.4
Regarding claim 7, Young teaches wherein the data encrypted by the first VPN tunnel includes Internet Protocol-based data.5
Regarding claim 8, while Young teaches a method comprising:
communicatively coupling an end device (fig. 1, item 130) to a mobile hardware virtual private network (VPN) device (fig. 1, item 118); and
communicatively coupling the mobile hardware VPN device to a wireless communication-based transceiver (fig. 1, item 110) to enable communication between the end device and a secure network based on a wireless communication protocol6,
Young does not teach the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for Young’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing Lindberg).
Young and Liu
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu (US 2006/0036854 A1; filed Aug. 9, 2004).
Regarding claim 2, while Young teaches wherein the mobile hardware VPN device (fig. 1, item 118) is communicatively coupled to the end device (fig. 1, item 130) via a connection (fig. 1, item 104),
Young does not teach the connection being a cable received in a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device.
Liu teaches a cable (fig. 6, item 56) received in a network port (fig. 6, item 102; “the network I/O port 102 is connected to the network cable 56” at ¶ 16) of a mobile hardware VPN device (fig. 6, item 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s connection to be a cable received in a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device as taught by Liu “to provide a portable VPN device used to provide VPN service without any external power supply.” Liu ¶ 6.
Regarding claim 4, Young does not teach wherein the communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver is a wired communicative coupling.
Liu teaches a wired communicative coupling (“the VPN device according to the present invention can not only communicate with the Internet 80 through wired transfer” at ¶ 21; “the network I/O port 102 is connected to the network cable 56”; fig. 6, items 10 and 100 are also wired communicative coupled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver to be a wired communicative coupling as taught by Liu “to provide a portable VPN device used to provide VPN service without any external power supply.” Liu ¶ 6.
Young, Liu, and Braun
Claims 3, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu, and in further view of Braun et al. (US 2016/0380664 A1; filed Aug. 18, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Young does not teach wherein a Wi-Fi antenna of the mobile hardware VPN device is disabled.
Braun teaches disabling a Wi-Fi antenna of a device (“the communication device 102 might determine to disable the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” at ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s mobile hardware VPN device to disable its Wi-Fi antenna as taught by Braun to prevent “a possible degradation in performance of the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” Braun ¶ 64.
Regarding claim 9, claim 3 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Young does not teach further including disabling a Wi-Fi antenna of the end device.
Braun teaches disabling a Wi-Fi antenna of a device (“the communication device 102 might determine to disable the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” at ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s end device to disable its Wi-Fi antenna as taught by Braun to prevent “a possible degradation in performance of the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” Braun ¶ 64.
Young, Liu, and Xu
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu, and in further view of Xu (US 2016/0373651 A1; filed May 24, 2016).
Regarding claim 6, Young does not teach further including a portable battery coupled to one or more of the mobile hardware VPN device or the transceiver.
Xu teaches a portable battery coupled to a device (“he portable battery apparatus 200 is coupled to a mobile device (e.g., the sports camera 100)” at ¶ 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of Young’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver to be coupled to portable battery as taught by Xu to “provide supplemental battery power without interrupting normal operations of” Young’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver. Xu ¶ 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 6 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 12.
Young, Liu, and Rahman
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu, and in further view of Rahman et al. (US 2024/0184274 A1; filed Dec. 1, 2022).
Regarding claim 10, Young does not teach wherein communicatively coupling the end device to the mobile hardware VPN device includes coupling one or more cables between an output port of the end device and an input port the mobile hardware VPN device, the input port of the mobile hardware VPN device corresponding to an ethernet port.
Rahman teaches coupling one or more cables (fig. 2, item 218) between an output port (fig. 2, item 214) of a device (fig. 2, item 210) and an input port (fig. 2, item 216) a second device (fig. 2, item 202), the input port of the second device corresponding to an ethernet port (fig. 2, item 216 accepts Ethernet cable item 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s communicatively coupling the end device to the mobile hardware VPN device to include coupling one or more cables between an output port of the end device and an input port the mobile hardware VPN device, the input port of the mobile hardware VPN device corresponding to an ethernet port as taught by Rahman “to improve factory capacity and meet product schedule.” Rahman ¶ 5.
Regarding claim 11, Young does not teach wherein communicatively coupling the mobile hardware VPN device to the transceiver includes coupling one or more cables between an output port of the mobile hardware VPN device and an input port of the transceiver.
Rahman teaches coupling one or more cables (fig. 2, item 218) between an output port (fig. 2, item 214) of a first device (fig. 2, item 210) and an input port (fig. 2, item 216) of a second device (fig. 2, item 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s communicatively coupling the mobile hardware VPN device to the transceiver to include coupling one or more cables between an output port of the mobile hardware VPN device and an input port of the transceiver as taught by Rahman “to improve factory capacity and meet product schedule.” Rahman ¶ 5.
Droge, Sivaswamy, and Balmakhtar
Claims 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Droge (US 2002/0004898 A1; filed Apr. 24, 2001) in view of Sivaswamy et al. (US 2023/0139329 A1; filed Nov. 1, 2021), and in further view of Balmakhtar et al. (US 11,665,533 B1; filed Dec. 30, 2020).
Regarding claim 14, while Droge teaches a method (fig. 6) comprising:
generating, via an end device (“The data may be obtained by a first computer or computer system.” at ¶ 53), first encrypted data (“Once obtained, the data is encrypted at a data link layer at step 92.” at ¶ 53);
generating, via a hardware device (“the data may be transmitted to a first interface device” at ¶ 54), second encrypted data (“Once the data link encrypted data has been received by the first interface device, it may be wrapped, i.e., it may be packetized at step 98 and encrypted again at an IP layer at step 100.” and “packetized, twice encrypted data” at ¶ 55), the second encrypted data including the first encrypted data (a “twice encrypted data” at ¶ 55 at least suggests the same data was encrypted twice);
transmitting the second encrypted data to a transceiver (“the packetized, twice encrypted data, may be transmitted to a second interface device” at ¶ 55); and
receiving, by the transceiver, the second encrypted data (“the packetized, twice encrypted data, may be transmitted to a second interface device” at ¶ 55 at least suggest the second interface device receiving the twice encrypted data) for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data7,
Droge does not teach (A) the generating the first encrypted data being via a first VPN tunnel; (B) the generating the second encrypted data being via a second VPN tunnel; (C) the hardware device being a mobile hardware VPN device; and (D) transmitting, by the transceiver and via a wireless communication protocol, the second encrypted data to a secure network for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data.
(A)–(C)
Sivaswamy teaches generating encrypted data via a VPN tunnel (“VPN tunnel 140 is configured to encrypt data activity using a VPN protocol 114” at ¶ 34); and
a hardware VPN device (fig. 1, item 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge’s generating the first encrypted data to be via a first VPN tunnel, for Droge’s generating the second encrypted data to be via a second VPN tunnel, and for Droge’s hardware device to be a hardware VPN device as taught by Sivaswamy “to protect data transfer between two different networks.” Sivaswamy ¶ 18.
Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for the Droge/Sivaswamy combination’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A)(describing Lindberg).
(D)
Balmakhtar teaches transmitting, by a node (“managing application executing on a virtual network function (VNF)” at 18:33–34) and via a wireless communication protocol (“receiving encrypted data, by a managing application executing on a virtual network function (VNF), according to a wireless communication protocol from a user equipment (UE)” at 18:32–35), encrypted data to a secure network (“routing the encrypted data, by the managing application, to a network location within the communication network in response to the data characteristic of the encrypted data” at 18:45–48) for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge’s transceiver to transmit, via a wireless communication protocol, the second encrypted data to a secure network for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data as taught by Balmakhtar to provide “a higher level of security for data and communication traffic.” Balmakhtar 4:22–23.
Regarding claim 15, while Droge teaches wherein transmitting the second encrypted data to the transceiver (“the packetized, twice encrypted data, may be transmitted to a second interface device” at ¶ 55) includes transmitting the second encrypted data via a connection (“the packetized, twice encrypted data, may be transmitted to a second interface device” at ¶ 55 at least suggests a connection between the first interface device and the second interface device) between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver,
Droge does not teach the connection being a wired connection.
Droge teaches a wired connection (“cables and wires, used to transfer data” at ¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge’s connection to be a wired connection as taught by Droge to provide “increasingly secure, cost-effective systems and methods of data transmission.” Droge ¶ 11.
Regarding claim 16, Droge teaches further including transmitting the first encrypted data from the end device to the mobile hardware VPN device via wired connection (“the data may be transmitted to a first interface device over a transmission medium at step 94. The data link encrypted data may be transmitted using a modem over a dedicated line, such as, for example, lines used in a conventional telephone system.” at ¶ 54) between the end device and a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device.
Droge, Sivaswamy, Balmakhtar, and Weinstein
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Droge in view of Sivaswamy, in further view of Balmakhtar, and in further view of Weinstein et al. (US 2019/0007257 A1; filed June 29, 2017).
Regarding claim 18, Droge does not teach further including communicating, via the transceiver, with an untrusted network to transmit the second encrypted data.
Weinstein teaches communicating, via a transceiver (“host computer system” at ¶ 13), with an untrusted network (“host computer system may securely browse, access, and/or communicate with untrusted network destinations” at ¶ 13) to transmit second encrypted data9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge’s transceiver to communicate with an untrusted network to transmit the second encrypted as taught by Weinstein “for using sandbox internet isolation to limit and/or segregate security threats while connected to an untrusted local area network (LAN).” Weinstein ¶ 13.
Droge, Sivaswamy, Balmakhtar, and Inamdar
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Droge in view of Sivaswamy, in further view of Balmakhtar, and in further view of Inamdar et al. (US 2025/0175795 A1; filed Nov. 28, 2023).
Regarding claim 19, Droge does not teach wherein the second VPN tunnel is an Internet Protocol Security (IPSec) Internet Key Exchange (IKE) VPN tunnel.
Sivaswamy teaches a second VPN tunnel (“VPN tunnel 140 is configured to encrypt data activity using a VPN protocol 114” at ¶ 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge to include a second VPN tunnel as taught by Sivaswamy “to protect data transfer between two different networks.” Sivaswamy ¶ 18.
Inamdar teaches an IPSec IKE tunnel (“IKEv2/IPsec may be used for secure tunnels” at ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Droge/Sivaswamy combination’s second VPN tunnel to be a IPSec IKE VPN tunnel as taught by Inamdar to provide “the foundation of secure connectivity solutions widely deployed today in network.” Inamdar ¶ 2.
Droge, Sivaswamy, Balmakhtar, and Ophir
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Droge in view of Sivaswamy, in further view of Balmakhtar, and in further view of Ophir et al. (US 2017/0230832 A1; filed Feb. 2, 2017).
Regarding claim 20, Droge does not teach wherein the first encrypted data includes Internet Protocol-based data.
Ophir teaches data including Internet Protocol-based data (“Internet Protocol-based data sessions” at ¶ 49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Droge’s first encrypted data to include Internet Protocol-based data as taught by Ophir “for data security for devices.” Ophir ¶ 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 14, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-20200403978-A1; US-20200387888-A1; US-20170134168-A1; US-12135818-B1; US-20220318438-A1; US-20170055148-A1; US-20160004877-A1; US-20130340067-A1; US-9571458-B1; US-20090031404-A1; US-20060036854-A1; US-20140136597-A1; and WO-2024152768-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
2 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the hardware VPN device. As such, the recited intended use limits the hardware VPN device to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, so long as Young’s hardware VPN device is capable of performing this intended function, namely establishing a first VPN tunnel to encrypt data generated by a second VPN tunnel associated with the end device, Young’s hardware VPN device fully meets this limitation. Young’s hardware VPN device is capable of performing the intended function.
3 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
4 The wireless communication protocol is from an intended use of claim 1’s transceiver. See n. 2 supra. Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
5 The data encrypted by the first VPN tunnel is from an intended use of claim 1’s mobile hardware VPN device. See n. 1 supra. Young’s hardware VPN device is capable of performing the intended function.
6 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
7 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Droge’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
8 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Balmakhtar’s node is capable of performing the intended function.
9 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Weinstein’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.