Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or claims 2-4 dependent thereon for similar
reasons. Moreover, since independent claim 10 recites similar limitations,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim for similar reasons.
Claims 21 and 22
Independent claim 21 recites limitations commensurate with the
checking limitation noted above with respect to independent claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
21 and dependent claim 22 for similar reasons as indicated with respect to
claim 1.
In addition, independent claim 21 calls for, in pertinent part, (1) at
least two gateway nodes for interfacing the access system with external
networks, and (2) at least two mobility entities which are associated with
different ones of the at least two gateway nodes (emphasis added). While
Leung does teach connecting an HA to the internet via multiple routers (i.e.,
gateway nodes) R1 and R3 as the Examiner indicates (Leung, col. 1, ll. 59-
63; Figure 1A), the reference still does not teach associating the mobility
entities (HAV1 and HAV2) with different gateway nodes as claimed. As
shown in Figure 2B, both HA1 and HA2 (and their associated mobility
entities HAV1 and HAV2) are associated with the same gateway node R1
(and therefore the same gateway nodes R1 and R3 as shown in Figure 1A).
For at least this additional reason, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21 or claim 22 dependent thereon.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013