Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claims 1-4 and 10
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Leung (Answer 3-5). Regarding
independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Leung does not disclose an
access system as claimed. According to Appellants, mobile nodes 6, 27 are
always associated with their corresponding “home agent” (HA) regardless of
their physical location (e.g., in groups 214, 216). Appellants add that HA1
206 and HA2 204 do not correspond to different access nodes of an access
system, but rather are merely mobile IP entities attached to the same network
section (i.e., groups 214, 216 collectively form one access port). As such,
Appellants contend, the HAs cannot correspond to different access nodes of
an access system (Br. 10).
Appellants further contend that the virtual HA (HAV1 202) and HA1
do not correspond to two different entities, namely a first mobility entity and
a first access node respectively. Appellants argue that since HAV1 is not a
physical router, but a façade adopted by one of the active HAs in the groups
(i.e., either HA1 or its backup HA2), the HAs collectively assume the role of
HAV1 (Br. 10-11) (emphasis in original).
In addition, Appellants argue that Leung’s system does not establish a
session between one of the multiple nodes and a second party via the first
access node and the first mobility entity as claimed. According to
Appellants, Leung merely transfers packets between two mobile IP network
entities (HA1 and Foreign Agent (FA) 10), not between a mobile node and a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013