Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
target system, irrespective of the type of such target system (Br. 13). Appellant
asserts the portion of Roberts relied upon by the Examiner merely mentions that
certain fields may be included in a packet of a micro-flow, which may be used by a
switch for differentiating packets of different micro-flows so that the switch can
determine how to route micro-flows through a network in order to achieve QoS
constraints (Br. 14).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues Roberts discloses “one
previously input specification” in the form of “label field 305” and associated
“QoS specification 310,” as incorporated into the incoming data packet(s)
comprising a request (Fig. 3a, col. 8 ll. 25-30). The Examiner argues Roberts
discloses “one previously input type of the target system,” as “label field 305” that
indicates the protocol type, destination address, and port number. The Examiner
further asserts Roberts discloses determining the type of the target system based on
the information found in the label field (col. 13, ll. 15-45, Fig. 8, i.e., “RTP voice,”
“RTP video,” and “HTTP type”) (Answer 23).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we find the language of
the claim broadly but reasonably reads on Roberts in the manner argued by the
Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that the recited language (i.e., determining
at least one performance related function, based on at least one previously input
specification ) broadly but reasonably reads on Roberts’ disclosure of micro-flow
QoS descriptors (i.e., one previously input specification) that are used for realizing
a guaranteed rate (“GR”) and a guaranteed maximum delay variation (”DV”),
where both of these parameters are representative of at least one performance
related function used to attain efficient signaling (routing) and queuing for each
micro-flow (col. 6, ll. 48-53). We further agree with the Examiner that a broad but
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013