Appeal No. 09/349,477 Page 4
Application No. 2003-1923
one or more subscriber workstations coupled via said packet-
centric protocol to each of said subscriber CPE stations over a second
network.
Claims 1-6, 8-16,and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over U.S. Patent No. 5,930,472 ("Smith") and U.S. Patent No. 6,295,285 ("Whitehead").
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Smith; Whitehead; and
U.S. Patent No. 6,262,980 ("Leung").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on a dispositive point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "Smith does not
explicitly teach real-time wireless bandwidth allocations and system resource
allocations are determined based on packet contents of packet to be communicated
over the wireless communication medium," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner
asserts, "Whitehead discloses queues contain information regarding time-of-arrival,
length of the packet and other information [see Col. 7, Lines 43-65] which means that
bandwidth allocations and system resource allocations are determined based on the
contents of packets since the term 'contents of packets' . . . would include information
such as lengths of the packets." (Id. at 9.) The appellant argues, "[s]uch information is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007