Appeal No. 2004-0505
Application No. 09/338,812
of the applied Riggan and Waclawsky references which discloses the
changing of the explicitly claimed communication information rate
(CIR) network parameter to a specific value. While the Examiner
has apparently asserted correspondence between the claimed
invention and Waclawsky’s disclosure of controlling various network
communication parameters (e.g., column 7, line 62 through column 8,
lines 1-6) to bring them into line with determined normal network
behavior, we find no indication from the Examiner as to how the
control of any of these various parameters would satisfy the
claimed limitation which recites a specific network parameter,
i.e., communication information rate, adjusted to a specific value.
The Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir.
2002). In our view, Waclawsky, at best, describes the adjusting of
various communication parameters to unspecified values in an
unspecified manner, which falls well short of the claimed changing
of a specific parameter (communication information rate) to a
specified value.
In summary, since all of the claim limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007