Appeal No. 2003-0843 Page 5
Application No. 09/198,728
From our review of the examiner's position (answer, pages 3
and 4), we find that the examiner has not set forth reasons why
the examiner believes that any features asserted to be lacking
would not have been known to an artisan. Nor does the examiner
set forth reasons why the examiner considers the amount of
experimentation required to carry out the invention to be an
undue amount of experimentation, both of which are required to
make out a prima facie case of lack of enablement. Although the
examiner asserts (answer, page 3) that the specification does not
provide a detailed description of the apparatus for carrying out
the invention, we agree with appellants (reply brief, page 5)
that the invention is carried out on a computer that is
programmed to implement the software for augmenting the topology
of the IP network to improve data flow at reduced cost.
We are not persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 3)
that the disclosure does not support the language "augmenting an
initial network topology" as recited in claim 1. From the
disclosure of figures 6A-6D and pages 21-25 of the
specification), we find that all end-to-end demand flows are
divided into two sets: keepers and stragglers, based upon their
minimum throughput demand. In one embodiment, the criteria is to
make demands which require at least one unit of trunk bandwidth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007