Appeal 2007-0789
Application 09/810,063
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claim 21, 23, and 24
Pursuant to the rules, the Board selects representative claim 21 to decide the
appeal with respect to the rejection of this group of claims, and claims 23 and 24
will stand or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 21
reads as follows:
21. The computer-implemented method as described in claim 4 wherein
the amount of time the user computer system uses the priority network
service is an elapsed time between the determining, by the network service
provider, that the user computer system has requested priority network
service and the receiving, by the network service provider, the request
message from the user computer system requesting that priority network
service be discontinued.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims over the prior art.
B. Facts
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the findings of facts from the Facts sections for
claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-18 above.
2. The Examiner found that
28
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013