Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner contends that Katzela discloses the claimed invention but for the
specific description of an anchor node of the tree topology (see page 3 of the answer
for the examiner’s analysis of Katzela). The examiner turns to Chen for the disclosure
of a system for hierarchical multicast routing in an ATM network wherein a certain
number of switches are arranged to control the routing of the connections in the
network according to a plurality of tree topologies and wherein each of the certain
number of switches belonging to a plurality of the predetermined tree topologies is
arranged to serve as an anchor node of the plurality of the predetermined tree
topologies during routing. The examiner points to the abstract, Figure 1, column 1, line
57 through column 2, line 19; column 2, lines 47-63, column 4, lines 33-54 and column
6, line 34 through column 7, line 29, of Chen.
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
technique of routing as taught by Chen, in the system of Katzela, “so that overloading of
the root node can be avoided in order to improve the flexibility of the system” [answer-
page 4].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007