Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
Lastly, Appellants argue that Leung does not disclose reacting to the
checking step by (1) maintaining a connection from the first access node to
the first mobility entity if there is not a second, more preferred mobility
entity, and (2) opening a new connection from the first access node to this
second, preferred mobility entity if it is available, and initiating macro
mobility management registration as claimed. Appellants contend that
Leung instead teaches that HA1 must emulate HAV2 (identified as the
“second mobility entity”) when HA2 fails (Br. 15).
The Examiner notes that Leung establishes a session between (1) one
of multiple mobile nodes (i.e., mobile node 6), and (2) a “second party”
(e.g., PC 16, FA 10, or corresponding node 18). Such communication,
according to the Examiner, is via the “first access node” (HA1) and the “first
mobility entity” (HAV1). The Examiner further contends that since HA2
and HAV2 function as standby agents in the event HA1 and HAV1 fails,
HAV2 therefore functions as a “second mobility entity” acting as an
alternative for the first mobility entity (HAV1) to the first access node
(HA1). The Examiner concludes that Leung therefore teaches checking
whether there is such an alternative (a second mobility entity) to which the
first access node can establish a connection -- an alternative which is more
preferred for the first access node in respect of routing than the first mobility
entity (Answer 9-10).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
At the outset, we agree with the Examiner that Leung establishes a session
between mobile node 6 and a “second party,” a “party” which can
reasonably include a remote entity on an external network. We also agree
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013