Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
In an embodiment of the present invention, channel selection is made
by the user when the user establishes a connection with an Internet Service
Provider. The user is presented with a range of usage rates associated with
the logical channels and the user’s network communications are
communicated across the selected channel. In this embodiment, the channel
selection could be made on the basis of the user’s address, using the source
address field 90 for transmitted packets and the destination address field 92
for received packets. [See Fig. 3 for a reproduction of the header in FF 10,
supra.]
25. In response to Appellants’ argument regarding the third and fourth steps, the
Examiner further “point[ed] out that Odlyzko teaches a plurality (a first, a second,
a third … ) of user’s terminals connected to said network, between which said
packets, including high priority headers, are transmitted (Fig. 1 items 10, 50, 52,
and 54).” (Answer 10).
26. Odlyzko also teaches at col. 8, ll. 15-18 (i.e., Odlyzko claim 1): “…
receiving packet data and an identifier of a logical channel from one of the
plurality of network users; routing each packet across the respective identified
logical channel … .”
27. Furthermore, Odlyzko teaches that “the user could specify a higher cost
channel for FTP (File Transfer Protocol) data communications … .” (Odlyzko, col.
5, ll. 44-47). It is well known in the art that FTP is a protocol that, as with most
communication protocols, includes a reply to acknowledge good or bad reception.
See e.g., http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc959/8_PortNumber.html :
2.2. TERMINOLOGY
…
reply
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013