Appeal No. 2002-1306
Application No. 08/993,321
Claim 4 recites that each of the switches is arranged to choose, in the beginning
of the routing controlled by the switch, the tree topology to be used in the routing,
“according to which tree topology’s centre point is located nearest to the switch in
question.” Since we find no such detail as to how such a tree topology is chosen
disclosed or suggested by the applied references, and the examiner has not addressed
this limitation, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Similarly, we find no teaching or suggestion, by the applied references, of the
transmission of an “identifier” of the tree topology routing to be used, as recited in claim
5, and the examiner has not addressed this limitation, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to claim 6, we will sustain the rejection of this claim, which depends from
claim 1, because it is clear that Katzela is directed to telecommunications networks
which are ATM networks, e.g., see column 6, line 59 of Katzela.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it is
also clear that Katzela’s telecommunications network utilizes a Private Network-
Network Interface (PNNI) protocol. See column 4, lines 43-44, of Katzela.
We will not, however, sustain the rejection of claim 8 because, like claim 5 supra,
we find no teaching or suggestion by the applied references, and the examiner has not
addressed the issue, of an “identifier” of the tree topology routing to be used.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007