Ex Parte Michael Walker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2014

10355062 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/355,062 01/31/2003 Anthony Paul Michael Walker 100202326 9954
7590 05/05/2014
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
EXAMINER
MESFIN, YEMANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY PAUL MICHAEL WALKER,
SRIKANTH NATARAJAN, and DIPANKAR GUPTA1
____________________

Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, LARRY J. HUME, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20-32. Appellants
have previously canceled claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of determining a mesh in a
computer network. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 23, 24, 27-29, and 31, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method executed by a computer for determining
a mesh in a computer network comprising:
obtaining topology information that indicates which
nodes in the computer network are interconnected including
producing, for a first node in the computer network, a list of
identifiers of nodes connected to the first node;
examining, by the computer, the topology information to
determine the mesh in the computer network, the examining the
topology information including using the list to determine
candidate nodes for inclusion in the mesh;
determining, by the computer and using the list, whether
the candidate nodes satisfy a first requirement and a second
requirement, the first requirement being that the candidate
nodes are a fully connected group in which each of the
candidate nodes interconnects with all other candidate nodes in
the fully connected group, and the second requirement being
that the candidate nodes in the fully connected group include at
least three nodes; and

2 Our decision relies upon Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 12, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 31, 2011); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 9, 2011); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
June 8, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jan. 31, 2003).
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

3
determining, by the computer, the mesh to be a maximal
mesh when the candidate nodes for inclusion in the mesh
satisfy the first requirement and the second requirement.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the maximal mesh
includes a largest possible number of fully interconnected
nodes in the computer network.
7. A method executed by a computer for determining
a mesh in a computer network comprising:
obtaining interface information that indicates which
interfaces in the computer network are interconnected;
determining, by the computer and using the interface
information, node information indicating which nodes of the
computer network are interconnected; and
examining, by the computer, the node information to
determine the mesh in the computer network, wherein the mesh
is determined to be a maximal mesh based on a determination
that candidate nodes for inclusion in the mesh satisfy a first
requirement and a second requirement, the first requirement
being that the candidate nodes are a fully connected group in
which each of the candidate nodes interconnects with all other
candidate nodes in the fully connected group, and the second
requirement being that there are at least three nodes in the fully
connected group.
23. The method of claim 1, wherein there are no
routing nodes in the mesh.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein each node of the
mesh is connected to every other node of the mesh without an
intervening node therebetween.
31. The method of claim 1, wherein in the list of
identifiers of nodes, each node has an associated list of only
nodes connected to the corresponding node.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

4
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Suzuki US 5,796,736 Aug. 18, 1998
Chu US 2004/0059829 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 17, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu. Ans. 3.
2. Claims 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 20-22, 24, 26, 28, and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Chu and Suzuki. Ans. 7.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Considering Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13-19), and pursuant to
our authority, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejections using the
claim groupings and representative claims indicated below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Unpatentability Rejection under § 103 over Chu
A. Claim 1: Claims 1, 6, 14, 17, and 25 stand or fall with
claim 1;3

3 Appellants indicate claims 3, 23, 27, 29, 31, and 32 stand or fall with
claim 1 (App. Br. 13), but also argues these claims in different groupings.
App. Br. 14-16. We separately address the rejection of these claims in our
decision, as noted.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

5
B. Claim 3: Claim 3 stands or falls alone;
C. Claim 23: Claim 23 stands or falls alone;
D. Claim 27: Claims 27 and 29 stand or fall with claim 27;
E. Claim 31: Claims 31 and 32 stand or fall with claim 31.
Unpatentability Rejection under § 103 over Chu and Suzuki
F. Claim 7: Claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-22 stand or
fall with claim 7;4
G. Claim 9: Claim 9 stands or falls alone;
H. Claim 24: Claims 24 and 26 stand or fall with claim 24; and
I. Claim 28: Claims 28 and 30 stand or fall with claim 28.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellants in
reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments which Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that any such
arguments are deemed to be waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claims 1, 3,
4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20-32 and, with the exception noted in the
analysis below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in

4 Appellants indicate claims 9, 24, 26, 28, and 30 stand or fall with claim 7
(App. Br. 17), but also argues these claims in different groupings. App.
Br. 18, 19. We separately address the rejection of these claims in our
decision, as noted.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

6
response to Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 23, 24, 27, 28,
and 31 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 6, 14, 17, and 25
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2, 3) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 17, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
a first requirement “that the candidate nodes are a fully connected group in
which each of the candidate nodes interconnects with all other candidate
nodes in the fully connected group,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend “[t]he first requirement states that the candidate
nodes are a fully connected group in which each of the candidate nodes
interconnects with all other candidate nodes in the fully connected group”
(App. Br. 13), and “Chu does not teach this first requirement.” Id.
Appellants argue Chu teaches a mesh component that determines
which nodes in the mesh are permitted to send and receive packets to each
other, but does not teach or suggest that each node is interconnected with all
other nodes in the mesh. Instead, Appellants contend, Chu determines
which nodes in the mesh can send and receive packets to particular nodes.
App. Br. 13. As a result of this purported distinction, Appellants contend
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

7
Chu does not teach or suggest the recited “first requirement” in claims 1
and 14. App. Br. 13, 14.
In the Reply, Appellants admit “paragraph [0049] in Chu does
acknowledge that a VPN can include a full mesh component” (Reply Br. 2),
but contends “Chu never teaches or even suggests that candidate nodes are
included in the mesh when these candidate nodes are fully connected . . .
[because] Figure 4 in Chu shows numerous nodes that are not fully
connected . . . [e.g.,] the node ‘Engineering’ is not fully connected to the
node ‘Marketing’ in Figure 4 of Chu.” Id.
We find Chu teaches or at least suggests a full mesh in which all
nodes are interconnected to each other. Chu, ¶ [0049], Fig. 2. We disagree
with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 13, 14) that “VPN 2 comprises 4 nodes
that are fully interconnected with one another: HQ, Engineering, Factory 1,
and Factory 2.” Ans. 13. As pointed out by Appellants (cited above), we
find VPN 2 does not teach full interconnection between nodes. However,
we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation of Chu Figure 4 (VPN 2) to be
fatal to the obviousness rejection, as discussed below.
Appellants have provided no evidence that combining the teachings of
Chu Figure 2 (fully interconnected mesh network) with Chu Figure 4 (not
fully interconnected mesh network) was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007), nor have Appellants
presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more than expected
results. Rather, we find that Appellants’ invention is simply a combination
of known teachings that realize a predictable result. The Supreme Court has
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

8
determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated
teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, we find a person of
ordinary skill in the art would be aware of full mesh network connectivity,
and that use of such a configuration would yield expected results.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further contend Chu does not teach or
suggest determining candidate nodes for mesh inclusion when the nodes
meet the two recited requirements of claim 1. Reply Br. 2.
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
(e.g., regarding whether Chu teaches or suggests determining candidate
nodes for mesh inclusion) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s
position in the Answer, we note that “[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether
factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived.” Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Cf. with
Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is
waived.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Notwithstanding the untimeliness of Appellants’ additional argument
in the Reply, we find Chu teaches or at least suggests determining whether
the candidate nodes meet the first and second requirements. Chu, Figs. 3
and 5 (connectivity matrix); ¶¶ [0052]-[0053]; and see Ans. 5, 13.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

9
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. As Appellants
have not provided separate arguments with respect to independent claim 14,
and dependent claims 6, 17, and 25, grouped together by Appellants and
rejected on the same basis as claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 3
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 1, in which “the maximal mesh includes a largest
possible number of fully interconnected nodes in the computer network,” as
recited in claim 3?
Analysis
Appellants contend the portions of Chu relied upon by the Examiner
(Chu, Figs. 1 and 4), particularly the VPN2 connected to Factory 1,
Factory 2, Engineering, and HQ, “does not include the largest possible
number of fully interconnected nodes in the computer network . . . [because]
HQ also connects to the DataCenter and VPN3 . . . [while] Factory 1,
Factory 2, and Engineering are not connected to DataCenter and VPN3 . . .
[so that] these connections are not fully connected.” App. Br. 14.
Appellants further contend “[n]odes are fully connected when each of the
nodes interconnects with each of the other nodes within the group.” Id.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

10
During prosecution,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, Appellants do not specifically define what is meant by the
phrase “a largest possible number” recited in claim 3. Appellants’
Specification merely states, “[i]n an exemplary embodiment, the mesh is a
maximal mesh . . . [which is considered to be] when it includes a largest
possible number of fully interconnected nodes (that is, there are no
additional nodes which are fully connected to the nodes of the mesh).”
Spec. ¶ [00016].
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we find Chu
teaches, or at least suggests the limitation “the maximal mesh includes a
largest possible number of fully interconnected nodes in the computer
network,” which reads on a full mesh network as shown in Chu Figure 2.
See Chu, Fig. 2, ¶ [0053]; and see Ans. 14.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

11
3. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 23
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14, 15) the Examiner’s rejection of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 1 in which “there are no routing nodes in the mesh,” as
recited in claim 23?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
The examiner relies on official notice, but this reliance is
contrary to the express teachings in Chu. Figure 4 in Chu
shows that VPN2 is a routing node since it routes requests from
HQ to the factories and engineering and from the factories and
engineering to HQ[ and, f]or at least these reasons, dependent
claim 23 is allowable over Chu.
App. Br. 14, 15. Appellants do not otherwise traverse the taking of Official
Notice as being procedurally improper, other than disagreeing with the
noticed fact.5

5 Appellants have not traversed the Examiner’s finding by stating that the
purported well-known fact is not considered to be common knowledge or
well-known in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) (“To adequately traverse
such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors
in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is
not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See
37 CFR 1.111(b).” (Emphasis added)). An adequate rebuttal of the
Examiner’s taking of Official Notice must contain sufficient information or
argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

12
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “it is well known in
the art [that] network nodes in a mesh topology can be switches or hubs
which do not perform routing and therefore are not routing nodes.” Ans. 7.
The Examiner further finds VPN2 is not a routing node because it is a
symbolic representation of a virtual private network having four nodes as
illustrated in Chu Figure 2. The Examiner’s taking of Official Notice is to
point out “that it is well known in the art that network nodes in a mesh
topology can be switches or hubs which do not perform routing (i.e., do not
use routing table as defined in the paragraph 60 of the specification) and,
therefore, are not routing nodes.” Ans. 15. We agree.
Further, regarding the amount of patentable weight to be given to the
negative limitation at issue, i.e., “there are no routing nodes in the mesh,”
not present in the originally-filed application and added during prosecution,
we find Appellants do not cite support for this limitation in the Specification.
We find the closest support for the possibility of excluding all routing nodes
in the mesh appears to be, “[i]n an exemplary embodiment, the computer
network can include switching non-routing nodes.” Spec. ¶ [00012].
Although not before us on appeal, it appears this disclosure may not support
a complete exclusion of routing nodes, as claimed. Santarus, Inc. v. Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). (“Negative
claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes
a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support
need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee
to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.”).

circumstances justifying the Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

13
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 23.
4. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 27 and 29
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 15) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 1 in which “each node of the mesh is connected to every
other node of the mesh without an intervening node therebetween,” as
recited in claim 27?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Figure 4 in Chu shows VPN2 connected to Factory 1, Factory
2, Engineering, and HQ. Factory 1 is not connected to Factory
2, Engineering, or HQ without an intervening node. Factory 2
is not connected to Factory 1, Engineering, or HP without an
intervening node. HQ is not connected to Factory 1, Factory 2,
or Engineering without an intervening node. Engineering is not
connected to Factory 1, Factory 2, or HQ without an
intervening node. VPN2 is an intervening node and thus
expressly teaches away from the recitations of claim 27[ and,
f]or at least these reasons, dependent claim 27 is allowable over
Chu.
App. Br. 15. Appellants make identical arguments with respect to dependent
claim 29. App. Br. 15, 16.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

14
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that VPN 2 in Chu Figure 4
teaches each node of the mesh is connected to every other node of the mesh
without an intervening node. Ans. 7. However, we do not find this
characterization of Chu to be fatal to the obviousness rejection of claim 27
because Chu Figure 2 illustrates a fully interconnected node in which “each
node of the mesh is connected to every other node of the mesh without an
intervening node therebetween,” as recited in claim 27.
Appellants have provided no evidence that combining the teachings of
Chu Figure 2 (no intervening nodes in the mesh network) with Chu Figure 4
(intervening nodes in the mesh network) was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enterprises, 485 F.3d
at 1162, nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation
yielded more than expected results.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 27 and 29.
5. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 31 and 32
Issue 5
Appellants argue (App. Br. 16) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 1 in which “in the list of identifiers of nodes, each node
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

15
has an associated list of only nodes connected to the corresponding node,” as
recited in claim 31?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Figure 3 in Chu teaches that a search is conducted to determine
which nodes are connected to a list of nodes. Each node does
not include this list. Furthermore, this list in Chu would not
include only nodes connected to a corresponding node because
the list in Chu would be much broader and include many other
nodes[and, f]or at least these reasons, dependent claims 31 and
32 are allowable over Chu.
App. Br. 16.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree claim 31 does not
specify the format of the recited associated list. Ans. 16. Further,
Since Chu teaches in Fig. 3 that when the step of “search for
another location that is connected to current list of locations” is
performed, each node on the current list would have an
associated list of nodes that are connected to the corresponding
nodes on the current list. The connectivity matrix of Fig. 5
shows how each of nodes has its associated list of itself and its
connecting nodes with connectivity represented by “1” (see
column/rows and paragraphs 0052-0053). Therefore, the claim
limitation of [“]each node has an associated list of only nodes
connected to the corresponding node[”] is met.
Id.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 31 and 32.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

16
6. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-22
Appellants argue (App. Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 2, 3) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chu and Suzuki is in
error.
In particular, Appellants argue the recited candidate nodes of claim 7
“are a fully connected group in which each of the candidate nodes
interconnects with all other candidate nodes in the fully connected group,”
and “[e]ach node in Chu’s mesh . . . is not interconnected with all other
nodes in the mesh.” App. Br. 17.
Analysis
Appellants’ contentions regarding the patentability of claim 7 are the
same as argued in connection with independent claim 1, Issue 1, discussed
supra. Appellants do not argue against the citation of Suzuki in the
rejection. Therefore, we find Issue 1 also to be dispositive with respect to
the rejection of claims 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-22.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 1, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 7. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect
to independent claim 18 and dependent claims 4, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 20-
22, grouped together by Appellants and rejected on the same basis as
claim 7, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

17
7. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 9
Appellants argue (App. Br. 18) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chu
and Suzuki is in error.
In particular, Appellants contend the portions of Chu relied upon by
the Examiner (Chu, Figs. 1 and 4) do not teach the disputed limitation,
particularly because the VPN2 connected to Factory 1, Factory 2,
Engineering, and HQ, “does not include the largest possible number of fully
interconnected nodes in the computer network . . . [because] HQ also
connects to the DataCenter and VPN3 . . . [while] Factory 1, Factory 2, and
Engineering are not connected to DataCenter and VPN3 . . . [so that] these
connections are not fully connected.” App. Br. 18. Appellants further
contend, “[n]odes are fully connected when each of the nodes interconnects
with each of the other nodes within the group.” Id.
Analysis
Appellants’ contentions regarding the patentability of dependent
claim 9 are the same as argued in connection with dependent claim 3,
Issue 2, discussed supra. Appellants do not argue against the citation of
Suzuki in the rejection. Therefore, we find Issue 2 also to be dispositive
with respect to the rejection of claim 9.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 2, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 9.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

18
8. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 24 and 26
Appellants argue (App. Br. 18) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Chu and Suzuki is in error.
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 7 in which “there are no routing nodes in the mesh,” as
recited in claim 24?
Analysis
In particular, Appellants contend:
The examiner relies on official notice, but this reliance is
contrary to the express teachings in Chu. Figure 4 in Chu
shows that VPN2 is a routing node since it routes requests from
HQ to the factories and engineering and from the factories and
engineering to HQ[ and, f]or at least these reasons, dependent
claims 24 and 26 are allowable over Chu in view of Suzuki.
App. Br. 18. Appellants do not argue against the citation of Suzuki in the
rejection.
Appellants’ contentions regarding the patentability of dependent
claim 24 are the same as argued in connection with dependent claim 23,
Issue 3, discussed supra. Therefore, we find Issue 3 also to be dispositive
with respect to the rejection of claims 24 and 26.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 3, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 24 and 26.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

19
9. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 28 and 30
Appellants argue (App. Br. 19) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu and Suzuki
is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests
the method of claim 7 in which “each node of the mesh is connected to every
other node of the mesh without an intervening node therebetween,” as
recited in claim 28?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Figure 4 in Chu shows VPN2 connected to Factory 1, Factory
2, Engineering, and HQ. Factory 1 is not connected to Factory
2, Engineering, or HQ without an intervening node. Factory 2
is not connected to Factory 1, Engineering, or HP without an
intervening node. HQ is not connected to Factory 1, Factory 2,
or Engineering without an intervening node. Engineering is not
connected to Factory 1, Factory 2, or HQ without an
intervening node. VPN2 is an intervening node and thus
expressly teaches away from the recitations of claim 29[ and,
f]or at least these reasons, dependent claims 28 and 30 are
allowable over Chu and Suzuki.
App. Br. 19. Appellants do not argue against the citation of Suzuki in the
rejection.
Appellants’ contentions regarding the patentability of dependent
claims 28 and 30 are the same as argued in connection with dependent
claims 27 and 29, Issue 4, discussed supra. Therefore, we find Issue 4 also
to be dispositive with respect to the rejection of claims 28 and 30.
Appeal 2011-008951
Application 10/355,062

20
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 4, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 28 and 30.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability rejections
of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the
rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11,
13, 14, 16-18, and 20-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
rwk