Ex Parte Perkuhn et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2019

14125976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/125,976 01/23/2014 Reiko Perkuhn
24112 7590 04/02/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4015-8781 / P34731-US2 1030
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REIKO PERKUHN, MARKUS KAMPMANN,
andRENEREMBARZ 1
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUT ITT A, Administrative Pa tent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 24--48, all the pending claims in the present application. See
Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants name Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants' invention "relates to methods of controlling content
delivery to clients of a mobile communication network" in which"[ a]
controlling entity, located outside the mobile communication network, can
control the content delivery to adapt content delivery for clients of the
mobile communication network in a particular region." Spec. 1 :8-9, 11: 14--
12:2. 2
Exemplary Claims
Claims 24, 33, and 42 are independent claims. Claims 24, 28, 29, and
32 are exemplary and are reproduced below with limitations at issue
emphasized:
24. A method of controlling content delivery to plural
clients of a mobile communication network, the content being
delivered to the plural clients over a radio access network of the
mobile communication network, the method comprising:
collecting geo information of the plural clients by a
network entity associated with the mobile communication
network;
evaluating, by the network entity, the collected geo
information of the plural clients based on a rule:
to determine whether the content delivery is to be
adapted; and
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification ("Spec.")
filed December 13, 2013; (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
March 17, 2017; (3)the Appeal Brief("Appeal Br.") filed September 1,
2017; ( 4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 17, 2017; and
( 5) the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed December 11, 2017.
2
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
to identify a region for which the content delivery
is to be adapted;
selectively outputting, by the network entity, a message
to a controlling enti "ty outside the mobile communication
network in response to it being determined that the content
delivery is to be adapted; [ and]
controlling, by the controlling enti"ty, the content delivery
in response to receiving the message, so as to adapt the content
delivery for clients located in the identified region.
28. Themethodofclaim 26:
wherein the controlling entity transmits the control
message to an execution point;
wherein, in response to receiving the control message,
the execution point directs a request for content coming from a
client located in the identified region to a content server of the
content source which is associated with the selected content
delivery rate.
29. Themethodofclaim 26:
wherein the controlling entity sends the control message
to the clients located in the identified region;
wherein, in response to receiving the control message,
the clients located in the identified region request the content
from a content server of the content source which is associated
with the selected content delivery rate.
32. The method of claim 31, further comprising:
receiving, by the controlling entity, quality reports from
the plural clients to which the content is delivered;
wherein the controlling entity modifies the rule based on
the received quality reports.
Appeal Br. 25-27.
3
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art 3 in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Goldschmidt
Anglin
Ishii
Henocq
Aybay
Komamura
Gopalakrishnan
us 2006/0013136 Al
US 2006/0023656 Al
US 2010/0296449 Al
US 2011/0013538 Al
US 2011/0154132 Al
US 2011/0158187 Al
US 8,341,255 B2
REJECTIONS
Jan. 19, 2006
Feb.02,2006
Nov. 25, 2010
Jan. 20, 2011
June 23, 2011
June 30, 2011
Dec. 25, 2012
Claims 24--31, 33--40, 42--46, and48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103( a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan,
Aybay, Ishii, Komamura, and Anglin. Final Act. 2-11.
Claim 47 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Aybay, Ishii,
Komamura, Anglin, and Goldschmidt. Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 32 and41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Aybay, Ishii,
Komamura,Anglin, andHenocq. FinalAct. 12-13.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
3 All citations to the references use the frrst-named inventor only.
4
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
ANALYSIS
Claim 24
Issue: Does the Examiner err in fmding the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests "selectively outputting, by the network entity,
a message to a controlling entity outside the mobile communication network
in response to it being determined that the content delivery is to be adapted"
and "controlling, by the controlling entity, the content delivery in response
to receiving the message, so as to adapt the content delivery for clients
located in the identified region," as recited in independent claim 24?
The Examiner fmds Gopalakrishnan' s "intermediate device/ data flow
controller/data module" teaches "controlling, by the controlling entity, the
content delivery ... so as to adapt the content delivery for clients located in
the identified region." Final Act. 2 (citing Gopalakrishnan 26:15-30,
emphasis omitted).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual fmdings. Appellants argue
the "flow rate control in Gopalakrishnan is implemented based on" a per-
client or "individual client basis, rather than on a regional basis" and"[ t ]hat
does not mean that all clients within a region (e.g., a cell) will have the same
adaption of content delivery." Appeal Br. 12 ( citing Gopalakrishnan 26: 15-
30 ). The Examiner responds that "applicant argues over embodiments not
cited by the Examiner" because '"in an embodiment, flow rate control can
be implemented on a per client basis' but further 'in other embodiments,
flow rate control can be implemented based on other criteria including ...
cell ID."' Ans. 2 (citing Gopalakrishnan26:33-38.
We fmd Appellants' argument unpersuasive because the Examiner's
fmdings are supported by substantial evidence. The embodiment of
5
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
Gopalakrishnan relied upon by the Examiner discusses that flow rate control
can be implemented based on other criteria, including, for example ...
subscriberlocation, [and] cell ID." Gopalakrishnan26:35-38. Appellants
fail to persuasively address this embodiment, and thus fail to explain why
Gopalakrishnan' s controlling of data flow rate for a subscriber location or a
cell ID fails to teach or suggest controlling ... content delivery ... for
clients located in the identified region," as recited in claim 24. Also,
Appellants' argument that Gopalakrishnan's flow control does not teach
"that all clients within a region (e.g., a cell) will have the same adaption of
content delivery" is unpersuasive because the argument relies on features not
recited in the claim, i.e., the claim does not recite adapting the content
delivery for all clients located in the identified region. Appeal Br. 12; see id.
25 (Emphasis added).
Next, the Examiner fmds the combination of Gopalakrishnan and
Aybay teaches or suggests the "controlling entity outside the mobile
communication network," as recited in claim 24. Specifically, the Examiner
fmds "Gopalakrishnan discloses the traffic manager (in the intermediation
module) is configured to provide traffic management in the network
including regulating the flow of content traffic between the elements in the
system ... [ and] Aybay discloses a flow module that can be disposed
outside of a network." Final Act. 3 ( citing Aybay ,r 28). The Examiner
fmds Aybay's flow module is equivalent to Gopalakrishnan's traffic
manager because they both teach entities controlling data flow. See id. The
Examiner determines that, in view of Aybay, "it is just an obvious variation
to one with ordinary skill in the art to move the functionality of the traffic
manager to a different location inside or outside the network" and "[i]t
6
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention to incorporate the teachings of Aybay into the teachings of
Gopalakrisnan in order to improve traffic analyzers by better detecting
anomalies." Final Act. 3 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the combination fails to teach the controlling entity
outside the mobile communication network "because Aybay's flow module
merely observes and labels flow behavior; it is not itself controlling flow
behavior. For instance Aybay's flow module does not block or throttle
content distribution to manage content delivery." Appeal Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded because ( 1) Appellants' arguments are not
responsive to the Examiner's fmdings and (2) Aybay teaches that flow
module 100 can include a "switch/router" that controls data flow. Aybay
,r 30; see also Ans. 6. Appellants attack Aybay alone when the rejection is
based on the combination of Gopalakrisnan and Aybay. That is, the
Examiner fmds both references teach "a controlling entity," as recited in
claim 24. The Examiner relies on Gopalakrisnan to teach a controlling
entity controlling content delivery by controlling data flow and on Aybay to
teach locating the controlling entity outside the network. See Final Act. 2-3.
Accordingly, we fmd this argument unpersuasive of error.
Next, Appellants argue the combination of Gopalakrishnan and Aybay
is improper because "the Office appears to rely on a mere allegation that
Gopalakrishnan's intermediate network device is equivalent to Aybay's flow
module" and "these devices are not equivalent." Appeal Br. 14.
As discussed above, we disagree with Appellants' premise that
Aybay's flow module fails to teach a controlling entity and thus Appellants'
argument that the combination is not obvious because the devices of
7
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
Gopalakrishnan and Aybay are not equivalent is unpersuasive. We agree
with the Examiner's fmdings that both references teach "a controlling
entity," as claimed, and therefore Appellants fail to show error in the
Examiner's obviousness determination.
Appellants further argue "[ t ]he Office has not provided any other
reasoning for its allegation that modify[ing] Gopalakrishnan to move the
traffic manager out of the mobile communication network would be 'an
obvious design engineering choice."' Appeal Br. 14. We fmd this argument
unpersuasive, noting the Examiner provides a motivation to modify
Gopalakrishnan based on Aybay. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. In the Reply,
Appellants then argue "[i]f Gopalakrishnan's traffic manager is moved
outside a mobile communication network into the Internet, Gopalakrishnan
could not ensure that the traffic manager would be in the data pathway to
both receive the request for data and throttle/block/ delay the response.
Reply Br. 4 ( citing Gopalakrishnan 5 :20-30).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, which is premised on
a "physical" or "bodily" incorporation of limitations of one reference into
the other. This is not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550
(Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is notnecessarythatthe inventions of the references
be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.").
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCP A
1981 ). "Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability
to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
( CCP A 1973 ). Rather than express obviousness as the physical
8
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of another
reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of select teachings
from different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary
skill in the art. See KSR!nt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
( the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art.). We, therefore, fmd unpersuasive
Appellants' argument requiring the bodily incorporation of Aybay' s flow
module disposed outside of a network into Gopalakrishnan. See Reply
Br. 4.
Next, Appellants argue the cited combination fails to teach the method
as claimed because "[t]he Office integrates teachings from a variety of
different network entities with defmed and well-known roles without any
explanation as to why or how it would be obvious to integrate these different
functionalities." Appeal Br. 15. We also fmd this argument unpersuasive
because the Examiner provides reasoning for modifying Gopalakrishnan
based on each of the cited references and Appellants do not address the
Examiner's stated reasoning. See Final Act. 3--4 (modifying Gopalakrishnan
and Aybay with the teachings of Ishii, Komamura, and Anglin "in order to
improve call admission control processes when a cell is congested, reduce
interference by automatically changing a threshold for determining a
congestion level and to better dynamically allocate bandwidth"); see also
Ans. 7. Appellants further argue Gopalakrishnan's "SGSN is not involved
in any way with the adaptation of content delivery." Appeal Br. 15. We are
unpersuaded because Gopalakrishnan' s "intermediate device/ data flow
9
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
controller/data module" ( controlling entity) adapts content delivery by
controlling data flow to clients based on a subscriber location or cell ID.
Final Act. 2. (citing Gopalakrishnan26:15-30).
Next, Appellants argue "[t]he workflow engine is never described by
Gopalakrishnan as outputting a message to the traffic manager." Appeal
Br. 16. In response, the Examiner states "Gopalakrishnan does not mention
a specific message but it is stated the workflow engine makes control
decisions for the traffic manager so there has to be a signal/message
transmitted from the workflow engine to the traffic manager." Ans. 8 ( citing
Gopalakrishnan 20:40-48). We agree with the Examiner's fmding that
Gopalakrishnan teaches the workflow engine controls how content is
processed including making "routing/caching/control decisions" by
communicating with other modules such as the traffic manager and thus
teaches, or at least suggests, transmitting a control message from the
workflow engine to the traffic manager. See id. Appellants further argue
"the control decisions the workflow engine makes is whether/where to cache
content and decide how best to retrieve content" and " [ t ]hat has nothing to
do with whether the traffic manager throttles or delays received content."
Reply Br. 6. We fmd this argument unpersuasive because claim 24 does not
require that the message output by the network entity to the control entity
result in "throttles or delays [in] received content." Appellants' argument is,
thus, not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Lastly, Appellants argue "[t]he Office mashes into the combination a
variety of teachings by other references that do not relate to a SGSN or
Gopalakrishnan's intermediate device in order to create a Frankenstein
network entity" and "none of these teachings suggest an entity with
10
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
particular functionality that can be integrated with the Patent Office's
SGSN/intermediate device hybrid." Appeal Br. 16-17. This argument,
however, is not supported by evidence found in the record and is, instead,
supported only by attorney argument which "cannot take the place of
evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Moreover,
Appellants' "Frankenstein network entity" argument inappropriately
requires the bodily incorporation of features not relied upon by the
Examiner from the secondary references. "The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. See also Nievelt, 482 F.2d
at 968 ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures."). Rather, "if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR, 550
U.S. 398 at 417. Here, Appellants have not demonstrated that combining the
teachings of the cited references would have been beyond the skill of a
person of ordinary skill in the art.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 24, and similarly, claims 33 and 42, which are only
nominally argued separately from claim 24. See Appeal Br. 23. Dependent
claims 25-27, 30, 31, 34--41, and 43--48 are not argued separately with
respect to the disputed limitation and fall with their respective independent
claims. See Appeal Br. 20-24.
11
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
Claim 29
Issue: Does the Examiner err in fmding the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests "wherein the controlling entity sends the
control message to the clients located in the identified region; wherein, in
response to receiving the control message, the clients located in the
identified region request the content from a content server of the content
source which is associated with the selected content delivery rate," as recited
in claim 29?
The Examiner relies on Gopalakrishnan to teach or suggest the
limitation at issue in claim 29. See Final Act. 5 ( citing Gopalakrishnan
25:19-50, 26:15-30, Fig. 6); Ans. 11-12 (citing id. 19:67-20:3, 26:15-30).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual fmdings, frrst arguing
Gopalakrishnan "never teaches content servers associated with a particular
content delivery rate." Appeal Br. 20.
We fmd this argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. We agree
with the Examiner's fmding that Gopalakrishnan' s content server 402 "has
content that is offered in six different versions/bit rates, that a user can select
and the selected rate is obviously 'associated' with the content source
considering the content source is the one that offered the bit rate." Ans. 12
( citing Gopalakrishnan Fig. 4). Appellants fail to persuasively demonstrate
why content server 402 providing content at a particular rate is not thereby
"associated with [the] particular content delivery rate," as in claim 29.
Next, Appellants argue "Gopalakrishnan never teaches that the recited
single control message is sent to clients located in the identified region"
because "Gopalakrishnan is concerned with a single client not clients."
Appeal Br. 21 ( emphasis added).
12
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
We are unpersuaded because Gopalakrishnan' s "disclosure is clearly
applicable to multiple clients." Ans. 12; see Final Act. 2 (citing
Gopalakrishnan 26: 15-30). As discussed above for independent claim 24,
Appellants fail to persuasively explain why Gopalakrishnan's control of
flow rate implemented based on "traffic conditions on the network,
subscriber service level, subscriber location, cell ID, priority, etc." fails to
teach or suggest sending control data to multiple clients. Gopalakrishnan
26:15-30.
Next, Appellants argue "Gopalakrishnan does not send any sort of
control message to even that single client." Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner
fmds "[ t ]he intermediate device therefore sends an implicit control message
to the client to select content chunks are a different bit rate by changing the
rate at which content chunks are sent to the client by the intermediate
device." Final Act. 11 ( citing Gopalakrishnan 24:52---62). In the Reply,
Appellants argue "[t]he potential to influence a client's decision by throttling
or delaying the flow rate is not the same thing as sending a control
message." Reply Br. 7. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because
Appellants' argument is not supported by evidence and is, instead, supported
only by attorney argument which "cannot take the place of evidence."
Pearson, 494 F .2d at 1405.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 29.
Claim 28
Issue: Does the Examiner err in fmding the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests "wherein the controlling entity transmits the
13
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
control message to an execution point; wherein, in response to receiving the
control message, the execution point directs a request for content coming
from a client located in the identified region to a content server of the
content source which is associated with the selected content delivery rate,"
as recited in claim 28?
The Examiner relies on Gopalakrishnan to teach or suggest the
limitation at issue in claim 28. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Gopalakrishnan
25:19-50, 26:15-30, Fig. 6); Ans. 12 (citing id. Figs. 2, 4). We adopt the
Examiner's fmdings and conclusions for claim 28. See id.
Appellants argue Gopalakrishnan "never teaches content servers
associated with a particular content delivery rate." Appeal Br. 21.
We fmd this argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner fmds Gopalakrishnan' s content server 402 "has content that is
offered in six different versions/bit rates, that a user can select and the
selected rate is obviously 'associated' with the content source considering
the content source is the one that offered the bit rate." Ans. 12 ( citing
Gopalakrishnan Fig. 4). Appellants fail to persuasively demonstrate why
content server 402 providing content at a particular rate is not thereby
"associated with [the] particular content delivery rate," as in claim 2 8.
Next, Appellants argue "Gopalakrishnan never teaches that any
control message is sent to an execution point. Changing the flow rate to a
client is not sending any sort of control message, much less a control
message to an execution point." Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner fmds "[t]he execution point can be seen as merely an
intermediary device between the client and server and can be any node in the
path between the client and server. For example the data gateway in Fig. 2
14
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
of Gopalakrishnan could be the execution point." Ans. 12. In the Reply,
Appellants argue "the Office has not explained how this theoretical
execution point directs a request for content 'in response to receiving the
control message.' Any entity within the data pathway merely forwards
content requests regardless of any throttling/delay, the putative control
message, by the intermediate device and certainly not in response to the
throttling/delay." Reply Br. 7.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Appellants fail to
persuasively demonstrate why Gopalakrishnan' s forwarding of content
requests by data gateway 206 is not in response to flow rate control signals
also forwarded by data gateway 206 from data intermediation module 220 or
influencer module 702, particularly in view of Gopalakrishnan's flow rate
control being implemented based on local client conditions such as
"subscriber service level, subscriber location, cell ID, priority, etc."
Gopalakrishnan 26:34--38; see Gopalakrishnan Fig. 2.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 28.
Claim 32
Issue: Does the Examiner err in fmding the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests "receiving, by the controlling entity, quality
reports from the plural clients to which the content is delivered; wherein the
controlling entity modifies the rule based on the received quality reports," as
recited in claim 32?
15
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
The Examiner relies on the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Aybay,
Ishii, Komamura, Anglin, and Henocq to teach or suggest the limitation at
issue in claim 32. See Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 13-14.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual fmdings, frrst arguing "the
combination fails to teach receiving quality reports from plural clients"
because "Henocq is only concerned with a single client sending a message
indicating congestion for a particular transmission to the single client" and
"says nothing about plural clients sending quality reports to a controlling
entity." Appeal Br. 22 (citing Henocq ,r 135).
We fmd this argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. As correctly
recognized by the Examiner, Henocq teaches transmitting a message from a
client to a server to indicate that the client is in a stable state or in a state of
congestion teaches or suggests receiving quality reports from a client. See
Ans. 13 ( citing Henocq ,r 13 5). Henocq also teaches "estimating a level of
use of a communication network linking a server and at least one client
(implying multiple clients are possible) and the client is subscribed to a
multicast session ( which indicates several client involved as well." Ans. 13
( citing Henocq ,r,r 2, 28). Appellants, in tum, fail to rebut the Examiner's
fmding that Henocq teaches or suggests multiple clients. See Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants further argue "the Office does not even identify citations to
the references for a rule taught by the references. The Office appears to just
make up a rule." Reply Br. 8.
We fmd this argument persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner
has not shown how the cited combination teaches or suggests modifying the
rule based on the quality reports, as recited in claim 32. See Ans. 13 ( citing
16
Appeal 2018-001915
Application 14/125,976
Henocq ,r 13 5). In response, the Examiner states "the [ claimed] rule isn't
specifically def med" and concludes:
In view of the references the intermediate module, can
for example, use the number of clients in a cell (region) to
determine there is no congestion by comparing to a threshold
and increase the data rate to the clients but when the clients
report that they are experiencing congestion, the intermediate
module can reduce data rate anyway ( modify the rule).
Ans. 14. The Examiner however, does not indicate where this disclosure of
modifying a rule is found in the cited references. Accordingly, on this
record we cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 32.
DECISION
We affrrm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 24--31 and 33--48
under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 3 2 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17