Appeal 2007-1047
Application 09/944,892
or computing resource; are aware of the contents of the
messages transported and can participate in the
processing and modification of the message while they
travel through the network.
(Br. 10, ¶ 1).
Thus, Appellants assert that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term
“active network” does not conform to what one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood an “active network” to be, and, further, is
inconsistent with the Specification (Br. 9-10). Therefore, Appellants
conclude that the networks taught by Matsuda and Bertin are not “active
networks,” as that term is used in the instant claims (Br. 12). Nevertheless,
Appellants specifically admit:
Notwithstanding that Bertin fail[s] to teach an active network,
the applicants admit that active networks are known. See
Appendices B-I[,] B-II, B-III and B-IV.
(Br. 12, ¶ 3, ll. 1-2).
In particular, Appellants argue that 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. 12, ¶ 3).
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
that the term “active network” is not defined in the Specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Thus, the Examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013