[below is part 2, follow the links for part 1, part 3 and part 4]
In yesterday's blog post, we mentioned how the pre-institution decision and reconsideration decision focused on the field that the scalable address occupied as disclosed in the prior art. Recall that the claim does not recite a field for the "scalable address." Further, the interpretation that was set forth in the pre-institution decision for claim 1 makes no mention of a field in the context of the scalable address. The claim limitation recites a "scalable address," not a "scalable address field."
Why focus on whether the "field" is scalable then? Not sure. There's no reason to focus on whether the field is scalable. Dependent claim 10 informs the issue. Here it is, clear as day, showing the "address" of the device is distinct from the "field" that the address occupies when the address is embedded into a message.
More tomorrow.
Over time we'll wrap this all up together. Here's the '492 patent at issue for those that are curious.