Appeal No. 2006-1957
Application No. 10/301,394
network, has a larger responsibility characterized by its ability to transmit at a higher
rate than the cluster member nodes, and is therefore at a different “node level” than
cluster member nodes 10. Further, Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Reply Brief,
page 3) notwithstanding, we find nothing in the language of claims 1 and 36 which
precludes the cluster head node 14 from being both a part of the cluster head network
and a part of the cluster member node network as disclosed by Li.
We further find, contrary to Appellants’ contention (Brief, page 12), ample
motivation, as set forth by the Examiner (Answer, page 4) , for the proposed
modification of Li with the “sensor/actuator node” teachings of Haas. As pointed out by
the Examiner (Answer, page 19), Appellants have mischaracterized the system
described by Li as a “non-ad-hoc” system since Li specifically refers to the disclosed
system as an “ad hoc” network (Li, column 4, line 65).
We also make the observation, from our own independent review of the
disclosure of Haas, that the system described by Haas is remarkably similar to that
disclosed by Li and, in addition, also describes the network collection of nodes as being
a sensor/actuator network as presently claimed. As illustrated in Figure 3 of Haas, and
described beginning at column 8, line 37 of Haas, a two-tier system is provided in which
network nodes 22 are formed into a first-tier cluster with one of the network nodes being
designated as a cluster head, e.g. CH1. As with Li, these designated cluster head
nodes CH1-CH4 form a second-tier cluster head network. Further, since the cluster
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007