Appeal No. 2002-2081
Application 09/304,188
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be fully met by the disclosure of Shimony [answer,
pages 3-4]. Appellants argue that the rate control in Shimony
occurs in the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) edge devices and
not in the end user devices as claimed. Appellants assert that
there is nothing in Shimony to suggest that the transmission rate
of data packets from an end user device is controlled [brief,
pages 4-13]. The examiner responds that it is evident according
to Shimony’s invention that not only the end user device is
controlled but also other devices in the system are controlled as
well in order to manage congestion and traffic flow in the system
[answer, page 5]. Appellants respond that the examiner failed to
respond to any of their arguments set forth in the brief.
Appellants argue that the end user device 32 in Shimony continues
to send data packets to the edge device 30 regardless of the
congestion in the network [reply brief, pages 2-4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-19 as anticipated by the disclosure of Shimony. Although
Shimony clearly discloses a method and apparatus for alleviating
congestion in a communication network, it is not clear that
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007