Appeal No. 94-4400
Application 07/771,063
first master node A from the information sent along the sequence
of links numbered 201, 202, 205, 208 and 209. Although the
information received on link 209 contains information about first
master link A, the information is sent without any interrogation
by the other control nodes. We see a basic difference between a
node sending information about its condition at all times and a
node being specifically interrogated by a different specific node
to report its status as a primary or alternate control node.
As an analogous example of this point, suppose that
person A communicates information to person B, and person B
passes this information on to person C. Although person C
becomes aware of the information that person A told person B,
person C never interrogated person A to get this information.
The information was derived by a totally separate channel.
Likewise in the applied prior art, information contained on any
one link may contain information that was present on other links
but such information was not obtained by an interrogation of
links not directly connected.
Although this distinction may seem trivial to some, it
forms the crux of appellants’ arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 10. We are not willing to interpret claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007