Appeal No. 2001-2001
Application 08/870,600
appeal. Our original opinion did not agree with this view, nor
do we now.
The actual language of representative claim 41 on appeal, in
our view, does not distinguish over the teachings and suggestions
of Shimizu of the process depicted in Figure 5A of first
reserving the bandwidth among various links in the system and
then in Figure 5B of the initiation of the establishment of a
user information path to the extent recited in the switching
circuitry clause at the end of representative claim 41 on appeal.
Appellants' disclosed invention performs two separate functions
according to the respective signaling circuitry and the switching
circuitry recited in this claim. Correspondingly, the bulk of
our prior decision clearly indicates that Shimizu performs a
separate signaling circuitry function to establish the
availability of the bandwidth from the beginning endpoint to the
ending endpoint through a separate path before the initiation of
the establishment or the actual establishment through separate
switching circuitry of the data path, as claimed. This is
detailed in our prior decision between pages 4 and 6 thereof.
The signal or message path in Shimizu and in claim 41 is
different than the actual data path or the path for data.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007