Appeal No. 2005-0004
Application No. 09/135,230
Rejection of claims in Group B (claims 5 and 6).
On page 12 of the brief, appellants argue:
On page 10 of the Final Office Action, the examiner rejected claim 5 as
being unpatentable over Gauvin et al. in view of Little et al. and further in view of
Pearce et al. The Examiner admits that Gauvin et al. fails to disclose “the
utilization of more than one bearer networks for the mobile devices.” Final Office
Action, page 10. To supplement the deficient teaching of Gauvin et al., the
Examiner relies on Pearce et al. Although Pearce et al. does disclose multiple
communication networks, it does not teach choosing one of the available multiple
communication networks based on “the connection information associated with
the particular network address.”
The examiner responds, on page 6 of the answer, stating “Gauvin and Little
expressly teach selection of various networks” and cites several examples.
We concur with the examiner and further note that as discussed supra with
respect to claim 1, Gauvin teaches that selection of the network can be based upon the
connection information (see column 6, lines 67 to column 7, line 1, which describe that
the connection information identifies if the particular server is to be accessed via a LAN
or WAN). Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and the claims
grouped with claim 5 in group B, claim 6.
Rejection of claims in Group C (claims 21 through 27).
On page 7 of the brief appellants argue:
For similar reasons to those as noted above with respect to claim 1, there is
nothing in Gauvin et al. that would teach or suggest one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide a network connection “in accordance with the obtained connection
information that is associated with the destination identity” of the remote server
from which a resource is to be retrieved.”
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007