Ex Parte MITTS et al - Page 9




              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.                                                                






                                                           9                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007