Appeal No. 2005-2429 Page 3
Application No. 10/069,612
II. OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts that Barzegar's
"providing high priority to voice communications by the ISD 22 by providing a bandwidth
on demand (column 13, lines 40-45) . . . necessarily includes a mechanism (adjustor)
'for adjusting a variable capacity parameter', since bandwidth-on-demand must provide
a capacity related parameter, such as bandwidth or transmission rate, for implementing
the functionality. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 10.) The appellants argue "the cited
reference does not teach or suggest adjusting a capacity parameter for the vocal
commanding based on the indication signal, as required by the claims." (Appeal Br. at
11.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine their scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007