Appeal No. 2003-0994
Application No. 08/579,544
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 20, 42, and 56. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claim 20, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the Georgiadis reference solely to teach, "operating as
a function of communications performance" [answer, page 7]. The
Georgiadis reference in combination with the Travis and Huang
fails to cure the deficiencies of Travis and Huang noted above
with respect to claim 16. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 21, 43, and 57 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 21, 43, and 57. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claim 21, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the Silberschatz reference solely to teach, "resource
allocation" [answer, page 7]. The Silberschatz reference in
combination with the Travis and Huang fails to cure the
deficiencies of Travis and Huang noted above with respect to
claim 16. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007