Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
scheduler 540” is explicitly shown as part of “Ingress Micro-Flow Manager [i.e.,
controller] 505” (Fig. 5, col. 12, ll. 3-10).
We note that the patentability of independent claim 22 turns upon our
findings regarding both Issues 1 and 3. Because we find the preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issues 1 and 3, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 as being anticipated by Roberts.
Analysis of Issue 4
Appellant argues Roberts provides no teaching of determining a
performance related function based on the unit of the target system to which a
request is directed, performance of the unit of the target system to which a request
is directed, or the origination of the request (Br. 16).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds Roberts obtains the QoS
descriptor values and applies the appropriate QoS constraints after determination
of the target system. Thus, the Examiner finds Roberts discloses determining the at
least one performance related function based on at least one of … the unit (i.e.,
type) of the target system to which the each of the one or more requests are
directed, as claimed (Answer 24).
We agree with the Examiner that the language of the claim broadly but
reasonably reads on Roberts’ disclosure of applying the appropriate QoS
constraints after determination of the target system. As discussed supra, we find
Roberts discloses a real-time protocol (RTP) that indicates voice or video data
intended for particular types of target systems capable of processing the voice or
video data (Fig. 8 and Fig. 2, see also col. 8, ll. 40-46, col. 9, ll. 1-3, l. 47, col. 13,
ll. 15-45). We note Roberts explicitly discloses voice and video data require more
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013