Appeal 2007-0349
Application 09/862,355
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Sitaraman at column 3, lines 21-37.
Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sitaraman and Lin.
DISCUSSION
Content of Sitaraman
Large corporations have a need to provide PoPs (Points of Presence)
(a PoP is an access point to the Internet) in a number of different cities to
service its clients, customers, and/or employees. If they let them dial in
directly to a server the telephone network charges might be relatively high
for the long distance connection. The corporation could establish PoPs in
these cities but the cost is usually relatively high. Instead, it would be ideal
to contract with an ISP (Internet Service Provider) Wholesaler having a
presence in the various cities which, in turn, can provide proxied access to
the corporation employees without a large capital outlay.
This mechanism raises some problems in that employees could
overwhelm a PoP and prevent the wholesale customers from the service that
they paid for. Similarly, a large number of employees spread over many
regions could potentially overwhelm the network maintained by the
Wholesaler. Accordingly, the Wholesaler would like to enter into an
arrangement with the corporation whereby the corporation pays a fee for a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013