Ex Parte BENMOHAMED et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0843                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 09/198,728                                                  

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellants' invention relates to methods and apparatus for             
          designing packet-based networks, and more particularly, for                 
          designing IP (Internet Protocol) networks with performance                  
          guarantees (specification, page 1).  An understanding of the                
          invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,               
          which is reproduced as follows:                                             
               1. A processor-based method for designing a packet-based               
          communications network, comprising the steps of:                            
               augmenting an initial network topology containing links and            
          associated capacities with one of additional links and                      
          capacities; and                                                             
               repeating the augmenting step until flow demands associated            
          with at least one connection can be routed in the packet-based              
          communications network.                                                     
               No prior art references have been relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims.                                  
               Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first                 
          paragraph, as being non-enabled.                                            
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejection,            
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed            
          May 21, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of           
          the rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007