Appeal No. 96-3047
Application 08/053,191
The Examiner does not specifically respond to any
arguments regarding claim 2.
We agree with Appellants with respect to claim 2. The
rejection based on the combination of Harrison and Freitas
does
not meet the negative limitation of “routing network ...
without changing the network ID of the mobile computing
device.” [claim 2, last paragraph]. We, therefore, reverse
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Harrison and Freitas.
Rejection of Claim 2 under 37 CFR § 1. 196(b)
Regarding claim 2, we note that limitations of claim 2
are met with the combination of Harrison, Freitas and
Benjamin. As we discussed this combination of references with
respect to claim 1, an alternate access point (or virtual)
route is created by the use of the gateway unit such as item
10 in figure 1 of Benjamin in Harrison, and the combination
also enables the communication between LUs lying in two
separate networks "without changing the network ID of either
LU in their respective networks." We, therefore, reject claim
-11-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007