Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
Appellants argue Pogue does not teach such an “active network.”
Appellants assert the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “active network”
does not conform to what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
an active network to be and is inconsistent with the teachings of the
Specification (Br. 8). Appellants argue the networks taught by Pogue and
Daniels are not “active networks,” as that term is used in the claims (Br. 9).
Nevertheless, Appellants specifically admit:
Notwithstanding that the references fail to teach an active
network, the applicants admit that the term active network
describes a known network type. See Appendices B, C and D.
(Br. 9, last paragraph).
Appellants further argue the prior art of record fails to establish a
suggestion or motivation to use an active network in a vehicle. Appellants
conclude the Examiner has impermissibly used hindsight in formulating the
rejection (Br. 10).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner points to page 8 of the
Specification and finds an active network may broadly include a plurality of
active elements enabling communication paths. The Examiner concludes
the term “active network” is not defined in the Specification with reasonable
clarity, deliberateness, and precision. The Examiner broadly construes the
term “active network” to mean active network elements used in connection
with the [network] fabric to include any number of intelligent structures for
communicating data packets (Specification 9: 16-21, emphasis added). The
Examiner finds Pogue teaches at least one embodiment where intelligent
devices perform network-related functions (Pogue, Abstract). The Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013