Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
space intervals based upon the calculated load. Therefore, we will sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 14.
For claims 9 through 12, Appellants again contend that Munger fails
to disclose using the number of messages received to calculate the load on
the host computer. We have dealt with this issue supra and have determined
that Munger does suggest calculating the load. Accordingly, we will sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 9 through 12.
Appellants set forth the same contentions for claims 13 and 20 as for
claim 4, discussed supra. For the same reasons we sustained the rejection of
claim 4, we will sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 20.
Regarding claims 15 through 17, Appellants again contend (Br. 31-
32) that there is no motivation to combine Cory and Nordenstam because
Nordenstam discloses using Bluetooth technology, which is allegedly
incompatible with the continuous transmission of Cory. As we determined
supra that Bluetooth is only an example of the wireless networks used by
Nordenstam and that Cory is cumulative to the teachings of Nordenstam and
Munger, we will sustain the rejection of claims 15 through 17.
Appellants contend (Br. 33) that Munger fails to disclose a bogus
message timer as recited in claims 18 and 19. The last issue, therefore, is
whether using a bogus message timer would have been obvious in the
combination of Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger. We found supra that the
combined teachings of the three references suggest sending dummy
messages during periods of low traffic flow and until a bona fide transaction
occurs at wireless terminal. Using a timer to determine when to terminate
the bogus messages would conflict with ending the dummy messages when a
bona fide transaction occurred. Therefore, it would not have been obvious
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013