Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
maintains that the size of Bruckman’s subpackets (i.e., fragments) is
additionally based on the size of the input encoder packet. The Examiner
points out that when Bruckman’s input packet does not exceed the
determined fragment size, then the size of the output packet is based entirely
on the size of the input packet (Answer 6-7, emphasis added).
Appellants further argue that the cited combination of references does
not teach or suggest “wherein the first data transmission rate is different
from and based on a data rate for transmitting the first encoder subpacket
indicated in a first rate indication message from a receiver,” as set forth in
claim 1 (Br. 17-20).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Tiedemann
teaches the receiver [remote station 6] transmits a maximum supportable
transmission rate to the transmitter [cell] (col. 11, ll. 44-52). The Examiner
also points to Tiedemann’s disclosure at Fig. 8, step 224: i.e., “Assign the
Scheduled Rate Based on the Max Transmission Rate, Preferred Rate, and/or
Requested Rate (from Remote Station).” In particular, the Examiner notes
that the “Scheduled Rate” is based on three factors of which the “Requested
Rate” is only one (Tiedemann, Fig. 8, step 224). Therefore, the Examiner
concludes that the breadth of Tiedemann’s disclosure teaches an
embodiment where the actual first data transmission rate is different from
and based on the “Requested Rate,” 1 i.e., where Tiedemann’s “Requested
Rate” corresponds to the recited “data rate for transmitting … indicated in a
first rate indication message from a receiver.” (Answer 8-9).
1 See Tiedemann’s “Requested Rate” (col. 11, ll. 44-45).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013