Appeal No. 2006-0663 Page 8
Application No. 09/841,862
combination of Forslow and Roccanova, we sustain this rejection
as well. With respect to claims 2, 5, 15, and 18, we agree with
the Examiner (Answer, page 12) that the transmission of the
indication of the selected QoS mode by the mapper controller 107
in Forslow to the gateway can be reasonably interpreted as a
“request” for the establishment of the connection, i.e., packet
switched (114, Figure 9) or circuit-switched (110, Figure 9) as
claimed.
Similarly, we find ample support in Forslow for the
Examiner’s position that Forslow discloses the feature of higher
user charges for higher quality QoS as broadly set forth in
dependent claims 3 and 16. As pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, pages 4, 13, and 14), Forslow discloses (column 1, lines
60-62) that users are charged based on the quality of the service
of the transmission as well as implicitly indicating (column 17,
line 66) the low cost of packet-switched communications relative
to circuit-switched transmission.
With respect to dependent claims 4 and 17, we find no error
in the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 4) that the quality of
service modes discussed at column 5, lines 1-10 and column 1,
lines 48-51 of Forslow correspond to those enumerated in the
claims. In particular, we find compelling evidence, i.e.,
excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, presented by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007