Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
of ordinary skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391
(“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case,
the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in
Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized
to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 17-18, 148 USPQ at 467.
D. Analysis
We have carefully reviewed the record and find that Appellants have not
persuasively argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over Odlyzko
and Saari.
Appellants argue that neither Odlyzko nor Saari nor a combination of the
two teaches or suggests all the limitation of Appellants’ claimed method, namely
the second thru fifth steps.
Appellants argue that Odlyzko does not disclose the second step because it
does not teach (a) a high priority header (FF 11) and (b) writing the high priority
header to one or more packets originating from the user computer system in
response to determining that a user computer system has requested priority
network service (FF 12 and 19).
We disagree that Odlyzko does not teach a high priority header. Odlyzko
teaches a header (FF 10) which can be designated so as to indicate that the
associated packet is intended for high priority service. The result of making an
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013