Appeal No. 2006-1957
Application No. 10/301,394
observation that it is a basic tenet of patent law that claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the description in the specification.
We have reviewed Appellants’ specification for guidance as to the proper interpretation
of the claim language setting forth the “node level” feature and we find little
enlightenment as to how to properly interpret such claim language. Further adding to
this difficulty is the fact that Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs do not refer to any
specific portion of their specification and, in fact, we do not find the terminology “node
level” mentioned anywhere in Appellants’ description of the invention. Given the paucity
of description in Appellants’ disclosure, we can only reach the general conclusion that
the language of claims 1 and 36 simply does not require the interpretation asserted by
Appellants in the Briefs.
With the above discussion in mind, we simply find no error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claimed “node level” language as set forth at pages 16-18 of the
Answer. At the very least, we find in Li a disclosure of a first tier cluster member node
network made up of nodes 10 with one of the cluster member nodes being designated
as a cluster head node identified with numeral 14. A second tier cluster head
“backbone” network is also disclosed in which the designated cluster head nodes within
each cluster member node network are connected together. For all of the reasons
articulated by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that the nodes within the first
tier cluster member network in Li are “arranged in a plurality of different node levels”
since the designated cluster head node 14, which is part of the first tier cluster member
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007