Appeal No. 2004-0716 Page 11
Application No. 09544,275
system to simplify the monitoring of bandwidth usage (See
specification page 4, lines 24-31 and page 5, lines 1-6).
From all of the above we find that Sawyer does not disclose
an active state that grants a maximum bandwidth, and a minimal
activity state that grants a minimal bandwidth. We therefore
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness of claim 1. Accordingly the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11-14 and 17, which stand or fall with
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 18. The examiner’s position (answer,
page 6) is that Brakefield discloses means for detecting the end
of an on hold condition, and that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to
modify the teachings of Brakefield with the teachings of Sawyer.
Appellants argue (brief, page 8) that Sawyer does not
disclose an on-hold condition, let alone detecting the beginning
or ending of such a condition. Appellants further argue that
there would have been no motivation to combine Sawyer with
Brakefield, because Brakefield is directed toward allocating
bandwidth, not for commencing or ending a minimum or high
activity state.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007