Appeal No. 2006-0384 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/041,979
not guaranty QOS for a packet based multimedia call through call associated individual
media stream bandwidth control, as recited in claim 1.
From all of the above, we agree with appellants that Drake does not anticipate
the language of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Drake is reversed. As independent claims 10, 14, 20, 26 and 29 also
recite the same or similar language, the rejection of claims 10, 14, 20, 26 and 29, as
well as claims 2-6, 11, 12, 15-19, 21-25, 27, 28, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7-9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drake in view of O’Neil. We cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 7-9 and 13 because O’Neil dos not make up for the deficiencies of Drake.
The rejection of claims 7-9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-6, 10-12 and 14-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 7-9 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007