Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
3. Appellants argued that claim 4 specifically claims a user computer system
requesting the priority network service be discontinued. Appellants argued that
Fig. 3 and the passage the Examiner cited (i.e., col. 6, l. 65 – col. 7, l. 65, see
supra) shows allowing a user to make an initial channel selection when first
establishing a connection with an Internet Service Provider and that this is not the
same as requesting that the service be discontinued. (Appeal Br. 11. See also Reply
Br. 4).
4. Appellants also repeated the argument made with respect to the first step of
claim 1, arguing that, similarly, Odlyzko does not teach or suggest writing a
normal priority header in response to receiving a request to discontinue priority
network service. (Appeal Br. 12).
5. Odlyzko discloses the capability of users to switch channels depending on
the level of quality service desired for the cost and congestion level.
Dividing the network into logical channels having graded costs will
regulate traffic and limit congestion because users who perceive that the
quality of service on a lower cost channel has degraded to an unacceptable
level will, if they have the available resources, switch to a higher cost
channel which, because of its higher cost, will have less traffic and hence
less congestion. As each channel becomes unacceptably congested, the user
will switch to progressively higher cost channels until the user achieves a
subjectively acceptable balance of cost and perceived quality of services.
Periods of congestion would lead to some users finding that they could not
obtain an acceptable level of service at price they could afford. In that case,
they would likely postpone or cancel the data transmission, lessening
congestion.
(Odlyzko, col. 3, ll. 9-26).
6. Odlyzko discloses an embodiment whereby a default logical channel is
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013