Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
Appellants further argue that Odlyzko does not disclose the third and fourth
steps. (FF 21). Specifically, Appellants have argued that Odlyzko does not teach or
suggest sending the packet with the high priority header to a second computer and
the user computer receiving the packet with the high priority header in response to
the sending. As discussed earlier, Odlyzko discloses transmitting a packet with a
high priority header. Odlyzko also discloses, as Appellants conceded (FF 23),
sending a packet by way of a selected high priority service according to the source
or destination address indicated in the header of the associated packet. (FF 24).
This disclosure, too, suggests transmitting a packet with a high priority header
because by giving the packet high priority service according to an address
indicated in the header, Odlyzko necessarily sends the packet with a “high priority
header.” Regarding sending a packet with the high priority header to a second
computer, we agree with the Examiner that Odlyzko shows this. (See FF 22 and
26). Packets selected for high priority service (and thus having a high priority
header) are sent between the user’s computer and various other computers on the
network. Regarding the user computer receiving a response packet with the high
priority header from the second computer in response to sending the packet with
the high priority header to the second computer, we note that Odlyzko teaches the
use of FTP as a high priority service. (FF 27). 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. (FF 27). Since the use of FTP is considered by
Odlyzko to represent a high priority service, one of ordinary skill in the art would
expect the reply to include a header consistent with that service, i.e., a high priority
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013