Ex parte COLEMAN et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-3047                                                          
          Application 08/053,191                                                      


               programming said mobile computing devices so as to appear              
          to said network as virtual routers able to change access                    
          points during a session;                                                    
               wherein said virtual routers connect one subnet to one                 
          other subnet, said one subnet being connected to a mobile                   
          computing device and having a fixed network ID and said other               
          subnet, through said fault-tolerant routing, being connected                
          to a selectable access point and therefore having a variable                
          network ID.                                                                 
               The Examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Benjamin et al.(Benjamin)     4,677,588           Jun. 30,1987              
               Harrison                      5,181,200           Jan.                 
          19,1993                                                                     
          Freitas et al.(Freitas)       5,321,542           Jun. 14,1994              
                                        (effectively filed Oct. 29, 1990)             
          Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                
          unpatentable over the teachings of Harrison, Freitas and                    
          Benjamin.                                                                   
               Rather than repeat the discussions of Appellants and the               
          Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                 
          the respective details thereof.                                             

          OPINION                                                                     

               We have considered the rejections advanced by the                      
          Examiner and the arguments in support of the rejections.  We                
          have, likewise, reviewed the Appellants' arguments set forth                

                                         -4-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007