Ex Parte MAWHINNEY et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-2081                                                        
          Application 09/304,188                                                      


          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   A method for alleviating congestion in a communication            
          network, the communication network enabling the flow of data to             
          and from a plurality of end user devices that are connected to              
          the network through a plurality of communication devices, the               
          method comprising the steps of:                                             
                    monitoring data flows to and from the plurality of end            
          user devices for indications of congestion; and                             
                    controlling the data rate of at least one end user                
          device in response to said congestion indications.                          
          The examiner relies on the following reference:                             
          Shimony et al. (Shimony)      5,898,669          Apr. 27, 1999              
          Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                      
          being anticipated by the disclosure of Shimony.                             
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                          
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence             
          of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the              
          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                      
          consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’                    
          arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s                 


                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007