Appeal No. 2006-2754
Application No. 10/108,109
Rather, Ramanathan’s self assessment is based solely on a single
factor (signal strength or “other data available through the
exchanging of messages by the cluster gateway station.”
Consequently, we find error in the Examiner’s stated position,
which concludes that Ramanathan teaches 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.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 8 and 11.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
8 and 11.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1 through
7, 9, 10, 12 through 15 as being unpatentable over combinations
of Ramanathan, Bak and Passman Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007