Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
We agree with the Examiner that the language of the claim broadly but
reasonably reads on Roberts disclosure of where micro-flows are stripped out (i.e.,
“breaking up”) of a composite flow en route to a respective target system and also
where micro-flows are bundled together (i.e., “merging,” “coalescing,” two or
more requests), as claimed (col. 7, ll. 21 and 25. We further agree with the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “requests” as being implemented using
packets.
We note that the patentability of each of dependent claims 9, 19, 37, and 47
turns upon our finding regarding Issue 5. Because we find the preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issue 5, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 19, 37, and 47 as being anticipated by
Roberts.
Analysis of Issue 6
Appellant argues Roberts fails to teach a previously input specification that
includes at least one of performance enhancement specifications, performance
enhancement goals, target system specifications, and target system goals (Br. 18).
We note Appellant essentially restates the same argument previously
presented for Issue 1, supra. We find the language of the claim 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”) (i.e., includes at least one of performance enhancement
specifications) (col. 6, ll. 48-53).
We note that the patentability of each of dependent claims 10, 21, 23, 38, 49,
and 51 turns upon our finding regarding Issue 6. Because we find the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issue 6, we
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013