Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
with the Examiner that HA1 reasonably corresponds to a “first access node,”
and HAV1 reasonably corresponds to a “first mobility entity.”
Although the virtual HAs (HAV1 and HAV2) are not physical routers,
but façades adopted by a respective active HA (Leung, col. 7, ll. 43-49),
these virtual HAs nonetheless at least implicitly require a “connection” to
their adopting HA for such emulation functionality to be realized. At a
minimum, such a “connection” is readily ascertained by noting the lines that
directly connect the boxes representing HAV1, HA1, HA2, and HAV2 as
illustrated in Figure 2B. Therefore, given this “connection” -- albeit via
emulation -- we find Leung reasonably establishes a session via both (1)
HA1 (the “first access node”), and (2) HAV1 (the “first mobility entity”).
Referring to Figure 2B of Leung, groups 214 and 216 comprise active
HAs 206 and 208 respectively. These active HAs, in turn, emulate their
respective virtual HAs (i.e., HAV1 and HAV2). The HAs also have a
significant backup function: if an HA should fail, the other HA will
automatically assume the role of active HA for the failed HA and its
corresponding emulation functions. However, this backup HA will also
continue to service its original group (and associated emulation). For
example, if HA2 fails, HA1 will not only continue to service its own group
214 (with HAV1 emulation) as it did prior to failure, but also assume HA2’s
role in servicing group 216 (with HAV2 emulation). In this backup
condition, HA1 emulates both HAV1 and HAV2. Commensurate backup
functions exist in the event HA1 fails instead of HA2 (Leung, col. 8, ll. 44-
67).
Although we find this backup condition in Leung effectively
constitutes an alternative mobility entity connection with respect to an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013