Appeal 2007-0036
Application 10/699,452
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary independent claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of communication comprising:
in response to a request for service, transmitting at least one
message comprising existing delay information corresponding
with an estimated delay length associated with accessing the
service through an open loop network.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ament US 2004/0105436 A1 Jun. 3, 2004
Buford US 5,945,948 Aug. 31, 1999
Bender US 6,366,779 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ament and Bender.
2. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ament, Bender, and Buford.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious. The Examiner contends that each of the two groups is
properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013