Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have utilized a MESH network (one node forwards to
subsequent nodes until reaching the gateway) in the above
modified system in order to provide alternative routes in case
of failure” as taught by Bartee.
Appellants argue (brief, page 8) that “[t]he
communications stations of Wesby only communicate with the
master station, but not with each other, and thus describe a
bus rather than a mesh network.” “Indeed, since the
communications stations of Wesby only communicate with the
master station, but not with each other, they have no need for
. . . a signal conversion device” as
claimed (brief, page 8). In summary, appellants argue (brief,
page 9) that “even if combined, the cited references lack all
the elements recited in the combination of Appellants’
independent claim 30.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Wesby discloses a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007