Appeal No. 2002-2292
Application No. 09/139,749
While we agree that instant claim 1 does not explicitly
state that all control of signaling functions is relinquished by
one radio network controller when transferring destination
address and binding information, it is only reasonable to
interpret the claim as so relinquishing such control. Claim 1
recites “releasing a number of transport level connections” and
“establishing a new transport level connection between the second
radio network controller and each of a plurality of destination
nodes...” It is true that Muszynski releases resources employed
in a diversity leg, but, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we agree with appellants that “the release of a
diversity leg is not equivalent to disclosing the release of a
transport level connection, nor does the release of a transport
level connection necessarily flow from the release of a diversity
leg” [reply brief-page 4].
As explained by appellants, at page 4 of the reply brief,
and supported by the instant specification, at the top of page 3,
“a diversity leg represents a logical connection between two end
points, whereas a corresponding transport level connection is a
functional layer within a layered network architecture design
that is responsible for conveying the signals associated with the
network diversity leg.” Our decision herein is based on this
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007