Appeal No. 2002-0874
Application 09/124,278
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We note that independent claims 1, 9 and 17, each recite a
weighted queue length. Specifically, claims 1 and 9 recite “said
weighted queue length for each of said plurality of queues being
a function of the type of data in the queue and the amount of
data in the queue”. Claim 17 recites “adjusting a weighted queue
length of a queue by a weight value when adding a data packet to
or removing a data packet from said queue”.
Appellant argues that neither Varma or Chao teach or suggest
a weighted queue length as claimed. See page 8 of the Brief. In
particular, Appellant argues that Varma’s Weighted Fair Queuing
(WFQ) does not read on Appellant’s claimed weighted queue length.
Appellant points out that, because the claimed weighted queue
length is determined by the combination of weights assigned to
the traffic class of the connection queue and the number of data
packets in the connection queue, the weighted queue length will
continuously change as data packets are added and removed from
the connection queue. On the other hand, the Varma patent
teaches the use of WFQ where the weight of a connection is
predetermined and does not change as the data packets are added
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007