Appeal No. 2002-1306 Application No. 08/993,321 serve as an anchor node of the tree topology during routing. It is appellants’ position that Chen does not disclose that “any” node can be a core node because it teaches that the selection of a core node is “crucial” [column 8, line 9]. We disagree. We find nothing in Chen that indicates that only certain nodes may serve as core node. Merely because the selection of core nodes is “very crucial,” and that it “is important to have the right set of core nodes” [column 8, line 19 of Chen], does not imply that “each” of the switches cannot be arranged to serve as a core node. We interpret Chen’s teaching to imply that for certain functions, certain switches are crucial to serve as core nodes but other switches, which may not be applicable to serve as core nodes for one purpose, may be very applicable as core nodes for other purposes. Also, while it may be, according to Chen’s teachings, that certain switches would be preferred as the core node for particular groups because they are better candidates based on a certain characteristic (e.g., “Nodes with larger degree also make better core nodes”-column 8, lines 22-23), this does not preclude other nodes within the group from serving as a core node, although they may not offer as good a result. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument and will sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007