Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
The first access point can be programmed to relay the
request directly to the second access point without the
intervention of a central system controller. The choice
of whether to relay the request directly between access
points or use a central controller is a matter of
programming a microprocessor-based packet radio to
achieve the desired communications function.
Because we find that Gilhousen does not teach
(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, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of anticipation. The anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8
is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner rejects claims 2-11 over Gilhousen in
combination with one or more of Labedz, Yamauchi, Harrison,
the APA, and what was well known in the art. We find that the
added prior art does not cure the deficiencies with respect to
Gilhousen. Thus, the rejections of claims 2-11 are reversed.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007