Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
23. Appellants argued that Odlyzko does not teach or suggest sending the packet
with the high priority header to a second computer and the user computer receiving
the packet with the high priority header in response to the sending.
Because Odlyzko does not teach or suggest “high priority headers” as
taught and claimed by Appellants, Appellants further submit that Odlyzko
does not teach or suggest “sending the one or more packets with the high
priority header from the user computer system to a second computer system
connected to a computer network.” Nor does Odlyzko teach or suggest
“receiving, by the user computer system, a response packet from the second
computer system, wherein the response packet includes the high priority
header, in response to the sending.” As discussed above, Odlyzko does
discuss source and destination addresses in col. 6, line 65 through col. 7, line
7. However, this section of Odlyzko does not teach or suggest sending a
packet with a high priority header to a second (i.e. destination) computer
system, and then, in response to this sending, receiving a response packet,
also with the high priority header, back at the user (i.e. sending) computer
system. In Figure 1, Odlyzko also shows computers connected via a
network. However, Odlyzko is not concerned with the sending of packets
and the response packets that are sent back in response to the sending.
Rather, Odlyzko is concerned with the various factors that are considered
when determining which logical channel to select when sending packets.
Although Odlyzko allows logical channels to be selected based on source
and destination addresses, Odlyzko does not teach or suggest determining
that a user computer system has requested priority network service, sending
one or more packets with a high priority header in response to making this
determination, and then, in response to this sending, receiving a response
packet back from the second computer system that also includes the high
priority header, as taught and claimed by Appellants.
(Appeal Br. 7-8).
24. Col. 6, l. 65 – col. 7, l. 7 of Odlyzko, to which Appellants refer, states:
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013