Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
The Examiner finds that limitations of apparatus
claims 12-21 track the steps of method claims 1-10 and rejects
claims 12-21 for the reasons stated with respect to
claims 1-10. The Examiner concludes that the apparatus is
simply a logical implementation of the steps disclosed in the
references (EA12). Because Gilhousen does not disclose the
function of "forming an instruction instructing said first
access point to relay a request to said second access point
requesting that said second access point accept a handoff of
said node from said first access point, and causing said
instruction to be communicated to said first access point" in
claim 12, which is similar to steps (b) and (c) of claim 1,
discussed supra, the rejection of claim 12 is reversed.
Because the additional prior art to Labedz, Yamauchi,
Harrison, the APA, and what was well known in the art does not
cure the deficiencies of Gilhousen, the rejections of
dependent claims 13-21 are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 16 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007