Appeal No. 1998-0622
Application No. 08/360,972
facie case of obviousness to meet these claims. Therefore, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims over
Buhrke and Caci.
Caci and Hayano
The examiner rejects claims 37, 38, 42 and 43 under this
combination at pages 6 to 8 of the examiner’s answer. The
examiner asserts, id. at page 7, that “[i]t would have been
obvious . . . to modify the bandwidth allocation system of a
communication processor as disclosed by Caci with bandwidth
allocation system based on priority as disclosed by Hayano et
al. to achieve high bandwidth efficiency . . . .” Appellants
argue, brief at page 10, that Caci and Hayano “do not teach,
disclose or suggest: (i)dynamically allocating a selected
amount of bandwidth, (ii) encoding the information according
to a portion of a predetermined bandwidth, (iii) selectively
transmitting the
encoded information, and (iv) a priority parameter indicating
urgency in receiving a dynamically allocated amount of
bandwidth.” We are persuaded by the appellants’ arguments.
We note that Caci does not disclose, as the examiner admits,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007