Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
service. In view of the fact that service requests are often sent to Internet Service
Providers (FF 7), it would have been obvious over Odlyzko to send a request to an
Internet Service provider to discontinue high priority channel in favor of another
level of service.
Odlyzko discloses setting a default logic channel. (FF 6). The default logic
channel represents the usual state or “normal” level of service. One of ordinary
skill in the art would foresee a user who discontinues high priority service
receiving thereafter the default or normal level of service. Given that Odlyzko
discloses that the header may be used to identify the channel corresponding to the
service desired, Odlyzko suggests writing a “normal” header to identify setting the
“normal” default logic channel – as opposed to a high priority header to identify
high priority service. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art reading Odlyzko for the provider to write a “normal” priority header
to a packet originating from a user computer in response to receiving a request
message that priority network service be discontinued and providing, in its place,
the expected default or “normal” service.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 4 over the cited references.
However, our reasoning in concluding that the claimed method would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art departs from that of the Examiner.
Accordingly, though we affirm the rejection of claim 4, we denominate the
rejection as a new ground under 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b).
E. Conclusion of Law
27
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013