Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
Appellants also argue that nothing in Katzela teaches an “anchor node,” as set
forth in the claims (the examiner recognizes this) and since Chen only describes a
“fixed” anchor node, there would have been no reason to combine the references to
arrive at the instant claimed invention.
The error in this reasoning is that it is based on the assumption that, in Chen, the
selection of the core, or anchor, nodes is fixed and that this teaches away from the
instant claimed invention. In the first place, nothing in the instant claim language
indicates whether the claimed “anchor node” is fixed or not fixed, so appellants’
argument is, again, directed to limitations not in the claims. Moreover, while Chen does
describe the core nodes as being fixed, in the sense that “[o]nce selected, it is assumed
that core nodes will not change” [column 8, line 40], that sentence in Chen goes on to
state, “however, as would be understood, this restriction is not binding.” Accordingly,
Chen is not limited to unchanging core nodes and, as such, appellants’ assertion that,
in Chen, the core node is fixed, is not accurate.
We will, therefore, sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
With regard to claim 3, appellants argue that the claim distinguishes over the
applied references because it recites that the data connections are further
characterized in that “each” of the switches belonging to a group may be arranged to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007