Appeal No. 2002-0874
Application 09/124,278
or removed from the individual queues, WFQ is not the same as the
weighted queue length of the claimed invention. See pages 3 and
4 of Appellant’s reply brief.
The Examiner argues that Varma does teach weighted queue
lengths as claimed. In particular, the Examiner points us to
column 7, lines 45 through 67. See pages 8 and 9 of the
examiner’s answer.
Upon our review of Varma, and in particular column 7, lines
45 through 67 of Varma, we fail to find that Varma teaches
Appellant’s claimed weighted queue length for each of the said
plurality of queues being a function of type of data in the queue
and the amount of data in the queue as recited in Appellant’s
claims. Varma teaches that a queue assigned a priority of zero
will have a greater priority than a queue assigned a priority of
one. Furthermore, Varma discloses that the controller 38 chooses
the first priority group starting from zero for transmission.
The controller 38 implements Round-Robin within priorities. From
our review of Varma, we fail to find that Varma teaches
Appellant’s claimed weighted queue length for each of plurality
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007