Appeal No. 2006-2754
Application No. 10/108,109
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of Claims 8 and
11 as Being Anticipated By Ramanathan Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of
the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to representative claim 8, Appellants argue in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Ramanathan reference does
not disclose the limitation of a node self-initiating a self-
assessment of its ability level to serve as a cluster head based
on a formula that assigns weights to at least two characteristics
of the node. Particularly, at page 5 of the Appeal Brief3,
Appellants state the following:
“Ramanathan does not disclose or suggest a
operating instructions (sic) for self-initiating a
self-assessment of ability level based on a formula
that assigns different weights to each of the at least
two factors in the communication device and for
determining cluster head status based on the ability
level assessed, as recited in independent claim 8.”
3 Appellants reiterate these same arguments at pages 4 and 5 of the Reply
Brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007