Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
rigid delay variation and jitter requirements in addition to being more sensitive to
traffic loss (col. 9, ll. 1-3). Therefore, we find 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.
We note that the patentability of each of dependent claims 5, 15, 33, and 43
turns upon our finding regarding Issue 4. Because we find the preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issue 4, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5, 15, 33, and 43 as being anticipated by
Roberts.
Analysis of Issue 5
Appellant acknowledges Roberts provides for breaking out individual micro-
flows from a composite flow of data such that the data micro-flows can be
communicated over different routes. Nevertheless, Appellant argues Roberts
provides no teaching of altering a request directed to a target system (Br. 17,
emphasis added).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes the prefix “micro” indicates
the subject being modified is a smaller set of a large group. The Examiner
interprets the claimed “requests” as being implemented using packets. Thus, where
Roberts discloses a micro-flow consists of a specific group of packets (col. 6 l. 46)
extracted from a composite flow (col. 7, l. 14, col. 7, l. 21), Roberts discloses
breaking up the one or more requests into two or more smaller requests, as
claimed. Roberts also discloses “bundled micro-flows” that form a composite flow
(col. 7, l. 25), thus disclosing coalescing two or more of the one or more requests
(Answer 25).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013