Appeal No. 1998-1473 Page 4
Application No. 08/493,741
alternate route when said one working link failed as
a tandem node;
(c) identifying in each of said custodial nodes
the port to which one end of said failed working
link is connected, the port to which one of said
respective spare links to said tandem node is
coupled, and the port through which traffic on said
route is routed to other nodes of said network; and
(d) disconnecting said traffic routed through
port from said spare link coupled port and cross-
connecting said traffic routed through port to said
failed working link connected port in each of said
custodial nodes.
The reference relied on in rejecting the claims follows:
Mansour et al. (Mansour) 5,058,105 Oct.
15, 1991.
Claims 1-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Mansour. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
briefs and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007