Appeal No. 2002-2288
Application No. 09/198,727
description of the physical form taken by the “values” that are
output is provided. We disagree. The claim recites that the
method is “processor based” and the specification at page 7, lines
1-14 lay out the routing processor, the optimization processor,
and the capacity to bandwidth processors. The specification also
illustrates that the output is displayed as information to the
user of the design system.
Second, the examiner states that Fig. 1 is the only figure
that depicts the system that would perform the mathematical
algorithm and that 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. Again, we disagree with the examiner’s
conclusion. Although informal, the drawings of figures 1-5 appear
to outline the manner of performing the claimed method, and the
specification discusses the manner in which the method is to be
implemented in sections 1.0 (link capacity computations), 2.0
(network topology optimization).
Further, and relating to all the claims under rejection, the
examiner has not made a finding as to the level of ordinary skill
in the art such that a conclusion can be drawn. The appellants
urge that the choice of programming language and processor is a
design choice well within the skill level or the reasonable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007