Appeal 2007-1410
Application 09/811,038
network edge device, and receives back an acknowledgement for the
reservation request, that acknowledgement constitutes confirmation that
adequate bandwidth over both the access networks, and the communications
network, is available (col. 11, ll. 3-13).
Yazaki
10. Yazaki teaches a packet including a source address, a
destination address, a port number, and a QoS identifier (col. 2, ll. 51-67).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1396 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but
must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the Examiner’s conclusion.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, because Kalmanek does not teach determining whether
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013