Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
indication in the header of the packet that the packet is intended for high priority
service necessarily renders that header a high priority header. Appellants have
argued that the three-bit Precedence field of the header that Odlyzko uses for
indicating a channel preference is not analogous to the claimed high priority
header. (FF 12). But Odlyzko discloses that, when a computer user selects a
channel for high priority service, Odlyzko uses that three-bit Precedence field of
the header to provide the indication that the packet associated with the header is for
high priority service. (FF 13). The header is thus transformed into a high priority
header. Furthermore, the claim does not preclude the header from being designated
a high priority header through the use of a three-bit Precedence field in the header.
The claim does not limit the choice of fields in the header that may provide the
high priority indication.
Regarding whether Odlyzko teaches writing the high priority header to one
or more packets originating from the user computer system in response to
determining that a user computer system has requested priority network service,
we find that this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art reading
Odlyzko. Odlyzko teaches that the Precedence field is advantageously set before
the packet is transmitted. (FF 17 and 19). To one of ordinary skill in the art, this
suggests a provider making a high priority service indication in the header of the
packet prior to transmitting the packet to the user computer. Odlyzko also teaches
that a user is presented with an option to use a high priority channel which, once
selected, provides that user with high priority service. (FF 16). To one of ordinary
skill in the art, this suggests a user computer requesting high priority service and
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013