Appeal No. 2003-0422
Application No. 08/818,355 Page 11
subscribing to other channels. Similarly, we find that the
portion of Ravindran relied upon by the examiner relates to
dynamic reconfiguration of communications due to changes in
internal conditions, such as depletion of buffers due to onset of
congestion. We find no teaching or suggestion of a channel
subscribing to another channel. Thus, even if we combined the
teachings of Ravindran and Aldred, the resultant combination
would not result in the invention set forth in appellants'
claims.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claims 1, 5, and 12. Accordingly, the rejection of independent
claims 1, 5, and 12, as well as claims 2-4, 6-11, and 13-20,
dependent therefrom, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007