Appeal No. 2006-3076 Page 9
Application No. 10/004,948
Additionally, we find that O’Sullivan teaches that using flow-to-port assignment,
these implementations use different criteria for deciding which flow to assign or even
move a follow to a different assignment and that termination criteria can be different.
Here, we find that these criteria are clearly policies that must be satisfied for proper
functioning. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejections under anticipation and obviousness of dependent claim 7 and dependent claims
14, 21, and 28 which Appellants elected to group therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Appellants’ state that the claims stand or fall
with the independent claims and have not set forth separate arguments for patentability.
Since we did not find Appellants arguments with respect to independent claim 1
persuasive, we similarly do not find them persuasive with respect to dependent claim 6,
and we will sustain the rejection under obviousness of dependent claim 6 and dependent
claims 13, 20, and 27 which Appellants elected to group therewith.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-23, and 26-36
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007