Appeal No. 2004-0716 Page 6
Application No. 09544,275
Sawyer discloses that bandwidth varies during a call, relatively
little bandwidth used during times of silence and more during
times of packets transmission, this teaches the limitations of
minimal and active activity states, respectively.
Appellants assert (brief, page 5) that the only aspect of
Sawyer in common with the appellants’ system is that Sawyer
“recognizes and addresses the problem of billing the user at
maximum bandwidth rates irrespective of actual usage”.
Appellants further assert that Sawyer does not: (a) suggest that
the bandwidth levels are distinct states, (b) detect on hold-
conditions, or c) switch to a minimum activity state on detection
of an on-hold condition. Appellants further argue (brief, page
6) that an artisan would not have equated silent periods with an
on-hold condition.
We begin our analysis with claim interpretation. Before
addressing the examiner's rejections based upon prior art, it is
an essential prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be
fully understood. Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 begins with a determination
of the scope of the claim. The properly interpreted claim must
then be compared with the prior art. Claim interpretation must
begin with the language of the claim itself. See Smithkline
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007