Appeal No. 2004-1537 3
Application No. 09/206,597
Claims 2, 6, 9, 12 through 14, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi in view of Jones.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ikeuchi in view of Jones and the admitted prior art.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ikeuchi in view of Jones and Mao.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 18 and 20) and the answer (paper
number 19) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 6, 9, 12 through 14, 17 and 18.
The examiner made findings (answer, pages 3 and 4) that Ikeuchi discloses all of
the limitations of claims 17 and 18 with the exception of prioritized data traffic in the form of
data packets. Appellants agree with the examiner’s finding that the transmitted signals in
Ikeuchi are not packets (brief, page 4). According to the examiner (answer, page 4),
“Jones teaches an ATM data network switch for use in switching cells of data between
pluralities of data links.” In view of such a teaching, the examiner has concluded (answer,
pages 4 and 5) that “[i]t would have been obvious to one [of] ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to adapt Ikeuchi’s protection switching system for use in a
packet communication environment and to use [a] packet header to identify the priority of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007