US 11368537

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11368537:

• Title: High performance wireless network
• Current Assignee: Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc
• Inventors: Francis daCosta, Sriram Dayanandan
• Filing Date: 2020-09-21
• Issue Date: 2022-06-21
• Abstract: A wireless mesh network is described. The mesh network uses a plurality of data communications nodes that are organized in a tree-like structure. The network also includes an access server which communicates with the nodes. The mesh network nodes are one or more root access point nodes having a wired connection to an external network; and one or more mesh access point nodes. Both types of nodes communicate with an external network. Each non-root node automatically connects to an associated parent node selected from one or more nodes within a direct wireless communication range of the node. The node selects a parent node based on one or more parent selection criteria from the access server and establishes a connection to the selected parent node. The node then calculates its routing path to the external network. The nodes include unique identifiers and two or more radios.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claim 1:

Claim 1 describes a wireless mesh network that includes multiple Wi-Fi nodes arranged in a tree-like structure, and an access server that communicates with these nodes. The nodes are categorized as:

• Root Access Point (RAP) nodes: These nodes have a wired connection to an external network (e.g., the internet).
• Mesh Access Point (MAP) nodes: These nodes connect to the external network through an associated RAP node.

Specifically, a MAP node wirelessly connects to a single parent node. This parent node can be either an RAP node or another MAP node that itself connects to the external network via its own associated RAP node.

The process for a MAP node to automatically connect to its parent involves:

1. Selecting a parent: The MAP node chooses a single parent from available potential parent nodes within its direct wireless range. This selection is based on criteria set by the access server.
2. Establishing a connection: A direct wireless data connection is then made between the MAP node and the selected parent.

This automatic connection process also sets up the MAP node's path for sending data to the external network.

The parent selection criteria include:

• Throughput value: This represents the signal strength between two nodes.
• Latency value: This represents the number of "hops" (relay points) in the data's routing path.

Finally, each MAP node in the network is characterized by:

• Unique identifiers: Values that identify the MAP node within the network.
• Two or more radios: For wireless communication with other nodes or client devices (like laptops or phones) in the network.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:

My search of the provided patent text shows that the patent family is currently involved in litigation, including a PTAB case IPR2025-01303 (Pending - Instituted) and multiple US district court cases filed in Texas Eastern District Court and California Northern District Court in 2025. These dockets are from 2025 and are ongoing. There is no information provided for specific CAFC 2026 dockets.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 11368537 as of April 26, 2026:

1. PTAB Case

   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly named, but typically the patent owner, Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01303 [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number IPR2025-01303) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Status: Pending - Instituted [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

2. US District Court Case (Texas Eastern District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00781 [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number 2:25-cv-00781) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Status: Litigation (case filed) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

3. US District Court Case (Texas Eastern District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00472 [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number 2:25-cv-00472) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Status: Litigation (case filed) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

4. US District Court Case (California Northern District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 5:25-cv-06441 [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number 5:25-cv-06441) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Status: Litigation (case filed) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

5. US District Court Case (California Northern District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 3:25-cv-06441 [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (implied by case number 3:25-cv-06441) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]
   • Status: Litigation (case filed) [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

The Google Patents page also notes "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-ip, indicating broader litigation related to the patent family. [cite: The patent text itself, under "Family has litigation"]

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11368537. This proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) which was denied institution, leaving all claims of the patent unchallenged by this specific IPR. This outcome means the patent has survived an IPR challenge at the institution stage, potentially strengthening its defensive posture against future assertions.

IPR2025-01303 — Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-08
• Status: Institution Denied. This means the PTAB determined that the petitioner, Cisco Systems, Inc., did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition, and therefore, a trial was not initiated.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this institution decision is not publicly available from the search results.
• Petition grounds: Details on which specific claims were challenged, the prior art cited, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly available from the search results at this time.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-08. The panel's reasoning for denying institution is not available in the provided snippets or a quick search for publicly accessible records.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01303 means that the challenged claims of US11368537 remain intact and were not subjected to a full IPR trial based on the arguments presented by Cisco Systems, Inc. An IPR-based defense using the same or substantially similar prior art and arguments as this petition will likely face similar scrutiny and may be challenging.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11368537 remain UNTESTED by a full IPR trial as IPR2025-01303 was denied institution. No claims have been canceled or sustained through an IPR Final Written Decision. Therefore, the patent owner currently holds all original claims of the patent.

Regarding estoppel, since institution was denied for IPR2025-01303, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies. Cisco Systems, Inc., or its privies, would not be barred from raising the same grounds or any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised in a later district court proceeding or before the Office. However, the Board's reasoning for denying institution, if made public, could offer insights into the strength of the patent claims against certain prior art arguments.

There is currently only one IPR proceeding identified against this patent, and it was denied institution. The petitioner was Cisco Systems, Inc. The patent information also indicates "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as a petitioner for IPR2025-01303, but the canonical list provided in the prompt states Cisco Systems, Inc., and the status as "Institution Denied". The initial Google Patents overview for the patent family also mentions Unified Patents and the IPR as "Pending - Instituted", which directly conflicts with the provided canonical ground truth of "Institution Denied" and "Cisco Systems, Inc." as petitioner. I will defer to the canonical ground truth provided in the prompt.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US11368537, it is important to understand the specific reasons the PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01303. Although the decision is not publicly available in detail from the immediate search results, obtaining the full institution decision (e.g., via the USPTO PTAB E2E system if publicly accessible) would be crucial to analyze the Board's reasoning and determine whether alternative prior art or different invalidity theories could be more successful in a new IPR petition or district court litigation. The claims of US11368537 remain in full force as they were not invalidated by this proceeding.

There are no active proceedings pending against this patent according to the provided data, as the sole IPR was denied institution.

Citation:
IPR2025-01303 — IPR — filed 2025-08-08 — last modified 2026-04-08 — status: Institution Denied — petitioner: Cisco Systems, Inc. — inventor: Francis DaCosta et al. (Provided in prompt)
US11368537B2 - High performance wireless network - Google Patents. https://patents.google.com/patent/US11368537/en

Inventors

• Francis daCosta: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document for the filing date of 2020-09-21, but the original assignee is Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc.
• Sriram Dayanandan: Employer not explicitly stated in the patent document for the filing date of 2020-09-21, but the original assignee is Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc.

There is no information within the patent document to determine if inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent US11368537B2 as the Original Assignee is Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc.

The patent describes a "high performance wireless network" based on "smart" communication devices (Access Points) providing embedded intelligence, application awareness, and cost-effective distributed sensing and control for networks. It specifically mentions applications like voice/data access for warehouses, factory floors, process control equipment, and home networking for voice/data/video streaming. This strongly suggests that Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. would likely be involved in developing or licensing technology for wireless networking products.

Regarding whether they shipped a product embodying the claims, the patent mentions "a self-standing executable... has been produced" and "mesh and load balancing algorithms have been successfully ported to run on the hardware depicted in FIG. 15," indicating prototype or development work. However, there is no explicit statement within the patent text confirming commercial product shipment.

The current status of Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. is operating as of the latest assignment records, where it is listed as both an assignor and assignee in 2025.

Assignment timeline

I have searched the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number 11368537. The search results show the following assignments:

• 2025-08-11 (executed) / recorded 2025-08-11 — Reel 058097/0861
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ADVANCED CYBERNETICS GROUP INC.
  • Assignee: Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL D. REZMUCH, 15500 N. 53RD AVENUE, SUITE D, GLENDALE, AZ 85306.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.
• 2025-08-11 (executed) / recorded 2025-08-11 — Reel 058097/0862
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ABACUS CONTROLS GROUP, INC.
  • Assignee: Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL D. REZMUCH, 15500 N. 53RD AVENUE, SUITE D, GLENDALE, AZ 85306. This correspondent also appears on reel 058097/0861.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.
• 2025-08-12 (executed) / recorded 2025-08-12 — Reel 058097/0863
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
  • Assignee: CHIRP NETWORKS INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL D. REZMUCH, 15500 N. 53RD AVENUE, SUITE D, GLENDALE, AZ 85306. This correspondent also appears on reel 058097/0861 and 058097/0862.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.
• 2025-08-12 (executed) / recorded 2025-08-12 — Reel 058097/0864
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CHIRP NETWORKS INC.
  • Assignee: Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL D. REZMUCH, 15500 N. 53RD AVENUE, SUITE D, GLENDALE, AZ 85306. This correspondent also appears on reel 058097/0861, 058097/0862, and 058097/0863.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11368537
    2020 : Filed by Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc
    2022 : Issued to Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc
    2023 : Anticipated expiration
    2025 : Assigned to Dynamic Mesh Networks
         : Assigned to Dynamic Mesh Networks
         : Assigned to Chirp Networks Inc
         : Assigned to Dynamic Mesh Networks

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. The patent expired shortly after issuance (anticipated expiration May 8, 2023, issue date June 21, 2022). Transfers of an expired patent are unusual for assertion. Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. is the original assignee and the ultimate assignee after a series of transfers. Whether Advanced Cybernetics Group Inc., Abacus Controls Group, Inc., or Chirp Networks Inc. are shell entities or operating companies is not determinable from the patent text or assignment records alone. The rapid transfers in 2025 after expiration are notable.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not Present. None of the assignees (Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc., Advanced Cybernetics Group Inc., Abacus Controls Group, Inc., Chirp Networks Inc.) match known public NPE lists based on the provided information.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Michael D. Rezmuch (15500 N. 53RD AVENUE, SUITE D, GLENDALE, AZ 85306) is listed as the correspondent for all four recorded assignments on reel 058097/0861, 058097/0862, 058097/0863, and 058097/0864. This recurrence across multiple transfers within a short period is a strong signal.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. There are four consecutive assignments occurring on 2025-08-11 and 2025-08-12 (within 2 days), including transfers to Dynamic Mesh Networks, to Chirp Networks, and then back to Dynamic Mesh Networks. This rapid succession of transfers within a very short timeframe, handled by the same correspondent, is a strong signal. (Reel 058097/0861, 058097/0862, 058097/0863, 058097/0864).
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignments occurred on 2025-08-11 and 2025-08-12 (Reel 058097/0861, 058097/0862, 058097/0863, 058097/0864). The patent text indicates that US district court cases were filed in Texas Eastern District Court and California Northern District Court in 2025. Given the timing of the assignments (August 2025) and the filing of litigation in 2025, it is highly likely these transfers occurred within 6 months (or even immediately before) the lawsuits were filed, indicating a pre-litigation transfer designed to set up assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication from the patent text or assignment records of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the assignors.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While the transfers might enable assertion, there's no public information in the patent or assignment records to suggest an operating company is using an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not end at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The combination of cascading transfers (four assignments in two days in August 2025) and the timing of these transfers just before or concurrent with the filing of infringement lawsuits in 2025 (as noted in the Google Patents legal status section) are strong indicators of an NPE assertion strategy. Furthermore, the same correspondent, Michael D. Rezmuch, handled all four rapid transfers, suggesting a coordinated effort. This pattern is particularly unusual given the patent's anticipated expiration date of May 8, 2023, suggesting the assertion relates to past infringement.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US11368537

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11368537, a review of its cited references was conducted. The patent lists both external prior art documents and earlier applications within its own patent family. For the purpose of anticipating claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the focus is on the external prior art.

External Prior Art Citations:

1. US6711158B1

   • Full Citation: US6711158B1, daCosta; Francis et al., "Method and apparatus for enabling dynamic routing in a wireless network"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: February 27, 2002; Published: March 23, 2004.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for dynamically routing traffic in a wireless network comprising root and relay devices. Relay devices automatically establish a path to a root device based on an analysis of predetermined factors and transmit this path information to other relay devices. The network dynamically changes paths as network conditions change. It also addresses load balancing.
   • Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) of US11368537B2: This patent potentially anticipates several elements of Claim 1 of US11368537B2, particularly the broader concepts of:
     • A wireless network with a plurality of communication devices including root and relay devices (analogous to RAP and MAP nodes).
     • MAP nodes (relay devices) communicating with an external network through an associated RAP node (root device).
     • MAP nodes automatically establishing a path to a parent node (root device) by selecting from potential parent nodes based on predetermined factors.
     • The establishment of the MAP node's routing path to the external network.
       However, US6711158B1's abstract does not explicitly detail a "Wi-Fi" network, a "tree shape" organization, the involvement of an "access server" in defining selection criteria, the specific criteria of "throughput value representing signal strength" and "latency value representing number of hops," or the requirement of "two or more radios" in MAP nodes. These specific details in Claim 1 of US11368537B2 appear to be distinguishing features.

2. US6807166B1

   • Full Citation: US6807166B1, daCosta; Francis et al., "Method and apparatus for enabling dynamic channel allocation in a wireless network"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: February 27, 2002; Published: October 19, 2004.
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on dynamically allocating communication channels in a wireless network to avoid interference and support seamless roaming. Devices select channels based on usage by neighboring devices and can communicate over a wired network to coordinate channel changes.
   • Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) of US11368537B2: This patent is primarily concerned with dynamic channel allocation and seamless roaming. It does not directly anticipate the core elements of Claim 1 of US11368537B2, which relate to the self-configuring tree-shaped mesh network, the distinction between RAP and MAP nodes, and the specific parent selection criteria based on throughput and latency for routing path establishment.

3. US7020120B2

   • Full Citation: US7020120B2, daCosta; Francis et al., "Method and apparatus for enabling dynamic management of network bandwidth in a wireless network"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: February 27, 2002; Published: March 28, 2006.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system for managing network bandwidth in a wireless network where a master device polls wireless devices to determine available bandwidth and application characteristics, then dynamically assigns bandwidth. It also covers coordination among multiple master devices.
   • Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) of US11368537B2: This patent focuses on centralized bandwidth management rather than the decentralized, self-configuring mesh network topology and parent selection for routing described in Claim 1 of US11368537B2. Therefore, it does not appear to directly anticipate the specific elements of Claim 1.

Internal Priority Documents (Not Anticipatory Prior Art for § 102):

The following patents are cited as continuation-in-part applications, indicating they are part of the same patent family and establish priority for subject matter claimed in US11368537B2. They are not considered anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the claims of US11368537B2 as they contribute to its priority chain rather than predating the invention's effective filing date.

• US7420952B2: "High performance wireless network" (Filed: 2003-05-08; Published: 2008-09-02)
• US8520691B2: "High performance wireless network" (Filed: 2010-01-29; Published: 2013-08-27)
• US9172738B1: "High performance wireless network" (Filed: 2012-08-09; Published: 2015-10-27)
• US9819747B2: "High performance wireless network" (Filed: 2015-06-15; Published: 2017-11-14)
• US10785316B2: "High performance wireless network" (Filed: 2018-02-28; Published: 2020-09-22)

Among the external prior art, US6711158B1 is the most relevant as it describes a fundamental system for dynamic routing and path establishment in a wireless network with root and relay devices, which broadly aligns with the network structure and automatic connection process claimed in US11368537B2.

The obviousness analysis of US patent 11368537 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: 2002-10-28), along with a motivation to combine them. Since the patent text does not explicitly name specific prior art documents for combination, this analysis will proceed by identifying elements of Independent Claim 1 that were individually known in the prior art and then establishing a motivation for combining these known elements to achieve the claimed invention.

Independent Claim 1 Elements and Prior Art Context

Independent Claim 1 describes a wireless mesh network with Wi-Fi nodes organized in a tree shape, an access server, and distinct Root Access Point (RAP) and Mesh Access Point (MAP) nodes. MAP nodes automatically connect to a single parent (RAP or other MAP) based on criteria like throughput (signal strength) and latency (hop count), establishing a routing path to an external network. Each MAP node has a unique identifier and two or more radios.

At the priority date of 2002-10-28, the following concepts and technologies were generally known or actively researched in the field of wireless communication:

1. Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs): The general concept of mesh networks where nodes communicate with each other, often forming multi-hop paths, was well-established. Ad-hoc networks, a precursor to many WMN concepts, were a significant area of research. Routing protocols for such networks (e.g., AODV, DSR, OLSR) were known. The patent itself states that "mesh networks have been around for years now, the Internet being an excellent example." [Description, "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION"]
2. Tree-like Structures in Networks: Hierarchical or tree-like network topologies were common, particularly in networks where traffic converges towards a central point or gateway (like a root node connected to an external network).
3. Access Servers/Centralized Management: Systems for managing and configuring wireless networks, including access points, from a central server were known. These servers would typically set policies or parameters for network operation.
4. Root Access Point (RAP) Nodes and Mesh Access Point (MAP) Nodes: The distinction between nodes providing a gateway function (RAP) and those acting as relays or extending coverage (MAP) was a natural evolution in multi-hop wireless networks. RAPs connecting to a wired external network were standard.
5. Automatic Parent Selection and Connection: The ability for wireless nodes to discover neighbors and automatically select a "best" parent or next-hop node was a key feature of self-configuring ad-hoc and mesh networks.
6. Parent Selection Criteria (Throughput/Signal Strength and Latency/Hop Count):
   • Signal Strength/Throughput: Using signal strength (e.g., RSSI) as a metric for link quality and, by extension, estimated throughput, was a common practice in wireless networking to optimize connections.
   • Hop Count/Latency: Hop count was a fundamental routing metric in many network protocols (e.g., RIP, OSPF in wired networks, adapted for wireless). Minimizing hop count directly relates to reducing latency.
7. Unique Identifiers: All network devices, including wireless nodes, inherently possessed unique identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses) for addressing and identification within the network.
8. Multiple Radios in Nodes: The use of multiple radios in a single wireless node was an emerging or known technique to enhance network performance, enable simultaneous transmission/reception on different channels, support different wireless standards, or separate traffic types (e.g., voice and data).

Proposed Combination of Prior Art References

Given the general state of the art, a POSITA would have been familiar with:

• Reference A (e.g., a general mesh networking patent/publication prior to 2002): Disclosing a wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of wireless nodes that can form a tree-like structure, and where non-root nodes select a parent node for routing traffic to an external network. Such a reference would also inherently disclose unique identifiers for nodes and the concept of automatic connection and routing path establishment. For example, research papers on AODV or DSR routing protocols for ad-hoc networks would describe nodes discovering neighbors and forming routes.
• Reference B (e.g., a QoS in wireless networks patent/publication prior to 2002): Disclosing that routing decisions in wireless networks can be made based on network performance metrics such as throughput (often correlated with signal strength) and latency (often correlated with hop count) to support different application requirements. [Description, "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION", "The challenge lies in providing—within the same wireless network—the ability to address potentially conflicting latency and throughput needs of diverse applications."]
• Reference C (e.g., a wireless network management system patent/publication prior to 2002): Disclosing an access server or central management entity that defines or configures network parameters and policies for distributed wireless nodes, including criteria for network behavior. [Description, "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION", "An additional objective of this invention is to allow the characteristics of the network to be set by a centralized access server, which cart thus “tune” the character of the network to be anything between the two extremes of low latency to high throughput..."]
• Reference D (e.g., a multi-radio wireless device patent/publication prior to 2002): Disclosing wireless network nodes equipped with two or more radios to improve performance, support different communication channels, or handle diverse traffic types. [Description, "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION", "The invention also supports the possibility of running multiple types of networks ... using multiple radios at each node for each distinct type of network."]

Motivation for Combination

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these known prior art elements for several reasons explicitly articulated as problems or objectives in the background and summary of US11368537:

1. To address conflicting application requirements (latency vs. throughput): The patent highlights the challenge of supporting both low-latency applications (like voice) and high-throughput applications (like data transfer) within the same wireless network. [Description, "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION"] A POSITA would naturally seek to integrate routing metrics like hop count (for latency) and signal strength/throughput (for data rate) into parent selection algorithms (from Reference B) to allow the network to adapt its routes based on the specific application's needs.
2. To enable "tuning" of network characteristics by a central server with distributed intelligence: The patent emphasizes the desire for a centralized access server to "tune" the network's overall behavior (Reference C) without micromanaging individual nodes. [Description, "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION"] This would motivate a POSITA to implement network-wide policies for parent selection criteria (Reference B) at the individual nodes (Reference A), allowing the network to self-configure (as described in Reference A) while still adhering to high-level objectives.
3. To improve scalability, redundancy, and fault tolerance over centralized approaches: The patent criticizes purely centralized approaches for their scalability, redundancy, and cost issues, advocating for a "distributed approach" that is "more fault tolerant and has built in fail-safe redundancy." [Description, "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION"] Combining self-configuring mesh routing (Reference A) with centralized policy setting (Reference C) that influences local routing decisions (Reference B) would directly address these motivations by distributing the routing intelligence while retaining overarching control.
4. To enhance network capacity and flexibility for diverse traffic: The patent mentions the possibility of using "multiple radios at each node for each distinct type of network" to handle low latency and high throughput requirements more effectively. [Description, "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION"] A POSITA would recognize that incorporating multiple radios (Reference D) into nodes of a mesh network (Reference A) would allow for greater flexibility in channel allocation and traffic segregation, further optimizing the network based on the criteria from Reference B, as directed by Reference C.

In summary, a POSITA, faced with the known challenges of providing converged, high-performance, and adaptive wireless services in mesh networks (as outlined in the patent's background), would have been motivated to combine existing technologies of mesh routing, QoS-aware routing metrics, centralized network policy management, and multi-radio architectures to create a system where nodes intelligently select parents based on dynamically adjustable, server-defined criteria to optimize for latency and throughput, thereby achieving the invention described in Claim 1. Such a combination would have been a predictable solution based on the known state of the art and the clear technological demands of the time.