Appeal 2007-1114
Application 10/314,687
Examiner maintains that signals which cause this to happen would constitute
bypass control signals (Answer 10). We agree with the Examiner’s
interpretation that the nodes or links are bypassed by the routing and find
that Yoo teaches at column 9, lines 30-35, that the traffic is monitored and
updates the routing table and to correct the routing table to route around
faulty nodes and links.
The Examiner further maintains that the routing information or table
322 of Yoo would have been control signals since it is used to route the
optical signals. Again, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation (Answer
10).
The Examiner maintains that independent claim 21 does not require
the switching control system to receive the bypass control signal and only
requires “the switching control system configured to receive at least one of
the bypass control signal and the electrical signal comprising the header, and
to generate in response thereto, the optical switch control signal for
controlling the optical switch.” We agree with the Examiner that the
language of independent claim 21 does not state that both signals are
received and only one is used in the control. Therefore, we find the
Examiner’s claim interpretation to be reasonable in light of the express
limitations as recited in independent claim 21. Therefore, Appellants’
argument that the switch controller of Yoo always uses the header
information as contrasted with Appellants’ invention (Br. 11; Reply Br. 4-7),
is not commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim 21.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants reproduce portions of the original Specification and argue
that the Examiner has dismissed Appellants’ argument regarding claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013