Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
requested base station 20 (second access point). Kojima does
2
not send a request to accept a handoff to the current base
station 20 (first access point), with a request to relay the
1
request to base station 20 (second access point), and no
2
request is relayed, directly or otherwise, from base station
20 (first access point) to base station 20 (second access1 2
point). Therefore, the Examiner erred in finding that Kojima
anticipates the limitations of steps (b) and (c) of
independent claim 1, which limitations find direct
correspondence in independent claims 11 and 12. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Gilhousen
Appellant argues that Gilhousen 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 Gilhousen teaches a mobile unit (node)
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007