Appeal 2007-1410
Application 09/811,038
in response to a determination that the capacity of said network being
sufficient to meet requirements of said reservation request, establishing a
virtual connection from said ingress node to said egress node.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kalmanek Jr. US 6,694,429 B1 Feb. 17, 2004
Yazaki US 6,768,738 B1 6,768,738 B1
Claims 8-14 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Kalmanek. Claims 15 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kalmanek in view of Yazaki.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Kalmanek does
not teach verifying network capacity in response to a determination that a
reservation request can be validated based on user verification. The
Examiner contends that Kalmanek teaches the two-step sequential process as
claimed.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013