Appeal 2007-0036
Application 10/699,452
estimate. It is noted, however, that Appellants’ Specification also fails to
explicitly disclose the concept of an “estimated” delay length2, but rather
discusses delay as a “value to be expected by a subscriber” (Specification 9:
19-20)(emphasis added) and that such expected delay “might be modeled
using a delay distribution algorithm” (Specification 9: 21-22). The
Specification does not provide any special definition for the term
“estimated.” The Examiner explains that “the time to accomplish a
communication service can vary based on the communication conditions,
which can alter the throughput i.e. the more interference, the less the
throughput and therefore, the waiting time is an estimate.” (Answer 6: 3-6).
We agree with the Examiner that the variability of communication
conditions means that any delay length figure computed based on prior or
current communications is necessarily only an estimate of the delay length to
be expected prospectively. As a result, we agree with the Examiner that
Ament teaches transmitting a message containing “estimated” delay
information, as the term is commonly understood.
As conceded by the Examiner, Ament does not teach accessing a
service through an open loop network. Bender so teaches (col. 1, ll. 42-44;
col. 2, ll. 59-61; col. 4, ll. 24-28), and suggests that doing so enables the
rapid assignment of traffic channels (col. 4, l. 15).
Appellants assert that “the disclosures of the Ament and Bender
references are considerably different” (Br. 13: 13) and that they “were not
intended to be modified or combined, in a manner, as suggested by the
2 The word “estimated” does not appear in the text of the Specification. It
only appears in Figure 3 as the subscript of the term “Destimate.” It is further
noted that the details of Figure 3 are not explained in the Specification.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013