Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
discloses step (a) without any description of structure; thus,
Gilhousen presumes the implementation is within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Nor has the Examiner explained why
steps (b) through (d) of claim 1 would not have been enabling
to one having ordinary skill in the art and has not addressed
Appellant's declaration, paragraphs 9 and 10, as to the
enablement of these limitations.
In conclusion, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of lack of enablement. The rejection of
claims 1-21 under § 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Kojima
Appellant argues that Kojima fails to teach or suggest:
(1) communicating an instruction from the node to the first
access point instructing the first access point to relay a
request to the second access point that the second access
point accept a handoff of the node from the first access point
to the second access point; and (2) directly relaying said
request from the first access point to the second access
point, which are steps (b) and (c) of claim 1. It is argued
that Kojima teaches a node sending switching requests directly
to both the first and second access point and, thus, there is
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007