Appeal No. 2006-2819 Page 4
Application No. 10/980,575
explained in the response section of the answer (at page 5) that the examiner considers
the pin shapes 240, into which power grid sections 235 are divided in Gould’s Figure 10,
to define “bounding regions” of the power grid sections 235, as claimed.
Our review of Gould finds that in Figure 10, grid sections 235 are divided into pin
shapes 240. It does appear that these pin shapes form “boundaries” within grid sections
235 and we find the examiner’s interpretation to be broad, yet reasonable.
Appellants’ argument in this regard (page 6 of the principal brief) is merely that
Gould’s “segments are not directly related to the power grids. But importantly, none of
the cited passage is related to ‘determining a bounding region of said robust power grid,’
as claimed.” We disagree.
At column 4, line 63, Gould states that “the power network is a grid.” Therefore,
the grid sections 235 in Gould’s Figure 10 are clearly directly related to a “power
network.” Grid sections 235 in Gould are therefore sections, or segments, of a power
network. Thus, it appears to us that appellants’ argument that Gould’s segments are not
directly related to the power grids is erroneous.
The pin shapes 240 in Gould do appear to set forth boundaries in the power grid
sections 235, at least as broadly claimed. We note that “a bounding region,” as claimed,
is never fully explained in the instant specification. The only disclosure of such a
bounding region is with regard to the flow diagram in Figure 3, viz. step 33. Paragraph
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007