Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
A) maintaining a connection from said first access node to said first
mobility entity if there is no second mobility entity which is more preferred
than said first one, and
B) opening new connection from said first access node to said second
mobility entity if said more preferred second mobility entity is available, and
initiating macro mobility management registration.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Leung US 6,195,705 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
(filed Jun. 30, 1998)
Claims 1-4, 10, 21, 22, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Leung.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer2 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
2 We refer to the most recent Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 3, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013