Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
serve as an anchor node of the tree topology during routing. It is appellants’ position
that Chen does not disclose that “any” node can be a core node because it teaches that
the selection of a core node is “crucial” [column 8, line 9]. We disagree. We find
nothing in Chen that indicates that only certain nodes may serve as core node. Merely
because the selection of core nodes is “very crucial,” and that it “is important to have
the right set of core nodes” [column 8, line 19 of Chen], does not imply that “each” of
the switches cannot be arranged to serve as a core node. We interpret Chen’s
teaching to imply that for certain functions, certain switches are crucial to serve as core
nodes but other switches, which may not be applicable to serve as core nodes for one
purpose, may be very applicable as core nodes for other purposes. Also, while it may
be, according to Chen’s teachings, that certain switches would be preferred as the core
node for particular groups because they are better candidates based on a certain
characteristic (e.g., “Nodes with larger degree also make better core nodes”-column 8,
lines 22-23), this does not preclude other nodes within the group from serving as a core
node, although they may not offer as good a result.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument and will sustain the
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007