Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
the provider providing that user with the requested-for high priority service.
Reading both of these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would foresee
only two options: the provider writing the high priority header before the user
selects high priority service or after the high priority selection is made. To one of
ordinary skill in the art, both options lead to the same predictable result, a high
priority header is associated with the packet being transmitted to the user. Thus
there is a reasonable expectation of success, irrespective of which option is taken,
of solving the problem of packet traffic congestion in designating as high priority
those packets selected for high priority service. Given this, it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to choose to write the high priority
header to the packet originating from the user computer system after determining
that a user computer has requested high priority network service and before the
high priority service packet is sent to the user computer.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there
are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397
(2007).
We also observe that much of Appellants’ argument with respect to whether
Odlyzko teaches or suggests the second step of the claimed method deals with the
fact that Odlyzko is concerned with channel selection. However, there is nothing in
the claim that limits the step of writing a high priority heading so as to exclude
using that indication as a means for selecting a high priority channel. (FF 20).
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013