Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
second party (Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). Appellants further argue that
communications in Leung between the FA 10 and HA1 occurs only when
the mobile node 6 is attached to the network section 14. These
communications, Appellants contend, do not provide a session between the
mobile node 6 and the FA 10 (“second party”) via HA1 (“first access node”)
and HAV1 (“first mobility entity”). Appellants add that since HAV1 resides
within HA1, it is not a separate network entity from HA1 (Br. 12-13).
Appellants also contend that Leung does not check whether there is at
least one second mobility entity to which the first access node can establish a
connection as an alternative to the first mobility entity and which is more
preferred for the first access node in respect of routing than the first mobility
entity as claimed. Specifically, Appellants argue that Leung simply does not
provide an alternative connection between HA1 and HAV2 in the event this
connection is more preferred than the connection between HA1 and HAV1.
Appellants emphasize that HA1 and HA2 merely emulate HAV1 and HAV2
respectively; there is no connection between the respective HAs and virtual
HAs (Br. 14).
Appellants add that Leung’s backup operation does not provide such a
claimed “alternative” connection. According to Appellants, when a
particular HA fails (either HA1 or HA2), the functioning HA will emulate
the virtual HA (HAV) of the failed HA (i.e., the HAV in the failed HA’s
group), but will also maintain its role in servicing its own group. That is, the
functioning HA will continue to emulate the virtual HA in its own group.
According to Appellants, such added emulation by a functioning HA in the
event of another HA’s failure is simply not an alternative to emulating its
own virtual HA (Br. 14).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013