Appeal No. 2006-2754
Application No. 10/108,109
1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to claims 1 through 7, 9, 10 and 12 through 15,
Appellants argue in the Appeal and Reply Briefs that Ramanathan
does not teach the claimed invention. Particularly, Appellants
assert that Ramanathan does not teach 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. We have already addressed
this argument in the discussion of claim 8 above, and we agree
with Appellants. Further, Appellants argue that none of the
secondary and tertiary references, Bak and Passman, cures the
deficiencies of Flannery. We agree with Appellants. Our review
of these references reveals that they do not cure Ramanathan’s
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007