Appeal No. 2003-1539
Application No. 09/027,400
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of computing a speed map for a digital network,
comprising:
determining whether or not a first speed between a first
node and a second node of the digital network is already
computed, the second node being on a network path between the
first node and a third node of the digital network; and
computing a second speed between the first node and the
third node of the digital network using the first speed.
The examiner relies on appellant’s admitted prior art [APA]
at page 3, line 26 through page 4, lines 1-3.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 16-18 and 24-33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
-2–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007