Appeal 2007-1410
Application 09/811,038
the capacity of the network is sufficient to meet the requirements of the
reservation request, in response to a positive determination that a reservation
request can be validated based on user information within the source
workstation (Br. 6:21-27 and 7:23-25). Appellants argue that the sequence
of steps is important because assessing network capacity through several
nodes may require substantial processing resources and time (Br. 7:7-8).
Performing the network capacity check only after a positive user verification
therefore dramatically improves the efficiency of the claimed reservation of
a virtual connection when applied to ordinarily connectionless networks (Br.
7:9-11).
The Examiner asserts that Kalmanek teaches two part, sequentially
dependent verification (col. 9, ll. 18-34), and that Kalmanek teaches
“verification” (col. 9, ll. 25-26), which is alleged to be a step of determining
whether or not the network has the capacity to handle the subscriber’s
quality of service requirements (Examiner’s Ans. 7:1-3). The section relied
upon by the Examiner, however, is concerned with the meaning of the term
“quality of service,” and how a particular QoS may be requested. Kalmanek
discloses that the service provider may verify the specified quality of service
for the call (FF 6), but this statement is within the context of the provider
verifying that calling party is entitled to receive such QoS.
For example, a calling party transferring data may
subscribe for a service with a quality of service having a large
bandwidth and small latency; in such an example, a service
provider can verify the service subscription for the particular
quality of service associated with the call for that particular
calling party.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013