Appeal No. 2006-0862
Application No. 10/039,928
we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Our
review of the disclosure of Dolin finds ample support for the Examiner’s position that
Dolin records and uses operational details of the operation of the described
communication system nodes for configuration purposes.
In particular, we find that Dolin draws a distinction between the 48-bit node id and
the node type information. We agree with Appellants that Dolin discloses that the node
id is assigned to the node at the time of manufacture (Dolin, column 11, lines 42-44)
and, further, that Dolin indicates (column 11, lines 44-46) “in a preferred embodiment”
that node type is configured at the time of manufacture.
It is clear to us, however, that other portions of the disclosure of Dolin indicate
that the node type information is node operation dependent and that this operation
dependent information is used by the controller to configure the node.
For example, column 11, lines 29-30 of Dolin describes the node type data as being
implementation dependent and further (column 11, lines 30-32) that the node type data
“can include information about the nodes operation.” Further evidence that Dolin
contemplates node configuration using node operation details transmitted from the
service pin 304 appears at column 11, line 51 where a node re-configuration is
disclosed which, at the very least, suggests a configuration sometime after the initial
manufacturer installation.
We also make reference to Dolin’s description (column 12, line 53 through
column 13, line 36) of the LED sensor 302 which is coupled with the bi-directionally
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007