Appeal 2007-1047
Application 09/944,892
communications art (See Answer 10). The Examiner, as finder of fact, has
determined that these well known networking features are taught and/or
suggested by Bertin (id.). We agree. Thus, the Examiner has concluded it
would have been obvious to an artisan to have implemented these well-
known features for the purpose of providing efficient data communications
and guaranteed quality of service (See Answer 11). Therefore, when we
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have employed (or would have found obvious to try),
we conclude the Examiner has articulated an adequate reasoning with a
rational underpinning that reasonably supports the legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner has met the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Matsuda in view of Bertin.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), we have decided the
appeal with respect to claims 2-9 and 11-21 on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Bertin for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013