Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
We will sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since this claim
merely recites that a “predetermined tree topology” is used in the routing and that it is
chosen at the beginning of the routing procedure. Clearly, there is a routing procedure
in Katzela and this routing employs a “predetermined tree topology.” For example, the
abstract of Katzela even indicates “a routing protocol for determining preestablished
VPI trees rooted at each destination node.”
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, like
claim 4 supra, we find nothing in the applied references suggestive of the claimed
choice based on “as to which tree topology’s centre point is located nearest to the
switch from which the routing starts.”
We will sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, like
claim 7 supra, it is clear that Katzela’s telecommunications network utilizes a Private
Network-Network Interface (PNNI) protocol. See column 4, lines 43-44, of Katzela.
Since we have sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, but
have not sustained the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8 and 12, the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 3-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007