Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
(Pogue, col. 2, ll. 10-21).
In particular, we note Pogue discloses at least one embodiment where
“intelligent nodes” are implemented with a microprocessor (see e.g., col. 11,
ll. 43-44, “the controller 74 is typically the node microprocessor that
controls the node,” see also col. 27, ll. 55-57). Pogue further discloses the
processing of message data at the node:
A controller 74 on the node device is connected to the IC 64
through an IIC compatible (but preferably faster) connection.
All configuration, status, and message data is available to the
external device through this port.
(col. 12, ll. 55-58, emphasis added).
Because Pogue’s “intelligent nodes” include a microprocessor that
processes message data, we find Pogue’s “intelligent nodes” are: (1) capable
of performing custom operations on messages that pass through the nodes,
(2) do not require a central server or computing resource, (3) are aware of
the contents of transported messages, and (4) can participate (i.e., are
capable of participating) in the processing and modification of messages
traveling through the network (See Appellants’ proffered plain meaning of
the claim term “active network,” supra, see also Br. 7).
We emphasize that Appellants have specifically used the language
“capable of” and “can participate” in construing the plain meaning of an
“active network” (see Br. 7). Thus, we find Pogue’s teaching of “intelligent
nodes” in a vehicle network clearly meets Appellants’ proffered plain
meaning of the claim term “active network” (see Br. 7).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013