Appeal No. 1998-0622
Application No. 08/360,972
any priority attached to the request messages. The examiner
uses
Hayano as a teaching for supplying the priority to the
communication signals. However, Hayano simply discloses the
teaching of assigning of a priority level to a packet of
information in a network. Hayano does not disclose a method
wherein a priority level is to be used in a video conferencing
network of the type shown by Caci. There is no teaching in
Hayano how a priority level is attached to a request message
depending on the available bandwidth, for the purposes of
video conferencing on an ISDN line. In our view, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness to meet
the recited limitations. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 37, 38, 42 and 43 over Caci
and Hayano.
Caci, Hayano and Buhrke
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under this combination of
references. However, since none of the references show or
disclose any teaching of the recited limitations discussed
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007