Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
It appears to us that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, at least in the case of independent claims 1 and 10, describing the
differences between the prior art and the instant claimed invention and giving a reason
why the artisan would have found the instant claimed subject matter obvious over the
prior art. We turn to appellants’ argument to determine if anything therein persuades us
of an error in the examiner’s case.
With regard to independent claim 1, appellants argue that the tree topologies
comprising the claimed switches include both wireless and fixed networks. In fact, a
substantial part of appellants’ argument is that the instant invention is directed to
including both wireless and fixed networks and that Katzela does not disclose or
suggest forming tree topologies in an ATM network using both wireless and fixed
terminals. Appellants contend that Katzela merely discloses a method for updating a
tree topology in order to handle network traffic and conditions in a wireless only
communications network. Note pages 3-5 of the principal brief.
This argument is not persuasive because it is not based on any particular
claimed limitation. Neither independent claim 1, nor any of the other claims on appeal,
is limited to forming tree topologies including “both wireless and fixed” networks.
Arguments regarding “both wireless and fixed” networks fail from the outset since they
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007