Appeal No. 2006-0384 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/041,979
It is well settled that if a prior art device inherently possesses the capability of
functioning in the manner claimed, anticipation exists whether there was a recognition
that it could be used to perform the claimed function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The examiner’s position can be found on page 3 of the answer. Appellants
assert (brief, page 8) that Drake does not disclose effecting a QOS guarantee through
call associated individual stream bandwidth control. It is argued (brief, page 8) that
notwithstanding the examiner’s characterization of the reference, Drake does not
disclose effecting a QOS guarantee through call associated individual stream bandwidth
control, because although Drake discloses a stream identifier to identify each
multimedia stream, Drake does not disclose individual stream bandwidth control. It is
argued (id.) that Drake only discloses attributes which deal with aggregate bandwidths
allocated to multiple reserved QOS data streams running through a bridge.
The examiner responds (answer, page 8) that:
The system disclosed by Drake, Jr.; et al. is for
insure adequate QoS for each requested data stream.
As can be seen on column 2, lines 37-41; column 4,
lines 34-36, a requested multimedia data stream is determined for QoS
(emphasis added). The above
argued various attributes in Drake, Jr.; et al.
are used for determining bandwidth control for a
particular data stream with a unique StreamID.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007