Appeal No. 2002-2288
Application No. 09/198,727
protocol (IP) networks with performance guarantees.
(Specification, page 1, lines 9-10).
The Rejection of Claims 1-42 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The examiner’s rejection is repeated below, as it pertains to
claim 1:
Claim 1 describes a mathematical algorithm. A pair of link
capacity values is computed for each link, and specific link
values are “output.” But neither the claim nor the specification
provides any description of the apparatus that outputs these
values. Furthermore, no description of the physical form taken by
the “values” that are output is provided. Fig. 1 is the only
figure that depicts the system that would perform the mathematical
algorithm. But the block diagram form of Fig. 1 provides
inadequate detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to
make or use the invention as claimed without performing undue
experimentation. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines 3-10).
The appellants, on the other hand, assert that consideration
of the factors as set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 735,
736-37, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1402, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) results in the
conclusion that the specification is enabling to one of ordinary
skill in the art. The appellants urge that the specification sets
forth in detail the link capacity values, upper and lower bounds,
link congestion scenario, and various types of network traffic.
It is contended that the details provided by the flow charts in
the context of the illustrative processing system are such that
one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of performing
the link capacity value computation without undue experimentation.
(Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 11-21).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007