Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
access node,3 we do not find that the system checks whether there is at least
one second mobility entity to which the first access node can establish a
connection as a more preferred alternative for the first mobility entity as
claimed. Leung’s HA backup functionality and the backup HA’s
concomitant emulation of the HAV corresponding to the failed HA is
determined merely by the operative state of the HAs: the system simply does
not affirmatively check for the preferred alternative mobility entity as
claimed.
In sum, Leung’s system normally maintains a connection from the
first access node HA1 to the first mobility entity HAV1 -- a normal
condition that would not include a second mobility entity that is more
preferred that the first one (i.e., with respect to mobile node 27 upon failure
of HA2). In addition to this connection, upon failure of HA2, a new
connection is opened from the first access node HA1 to an available second
mobility entity HAV2. And, as we indicated previously, at least from the
perspective of mobile node 27, this second mobility entity connection would
be preferred when HA2 fails.
Nevertheless, Leung fails to disclose checking for such a preferred
alternative as claimed. For this reason alone, we find Leung fails to meet all
3 For example, with respect to the operation of HA1, two distinct alternatives
exist: (1) HA1 emulates HAV1 (one mobility entity connection under
normal operation), and (2) HA1 emulates both HAV1 and HAV2 (failure of
HA2 results in two mobility entity connections).
In our view, upon failure of HA2, the alternative which connects the first
access node HA1 to the second mobility entity HAV2 would certainly be
preferred over the first alternative (no second mobility entity emulation at
all) at least with respect to mobile node 27. Indeed, without such an
alternative, mobile node 27 could not communicate effectively.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013