Appeal 2007-1964
Application 09/940,577
Independent Claim 35
Independent claim 35 also recites limitations commensurate with the
checking limitation noted above with respect to independent claim 1. We
will therefore not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 35
for similar reasons as indicated in connection with claim 1.
In addition, independent claim 35 calls for, in pertinent part, (1) at
least two gateway nodes for interfacing the packet radio access system with
external networks, and (2) at least two foreign agents which are associated
with different ones of the at least two gateway nodes.
Leung indicates that the disclosed aspects pertaining to HAs apply to
FAs as well (Leung, col. 6, ll. 42-47; col. 8, ll. 36-43; col. 23, ll. 48-53).
Our discussion with respect to claims 21 and 22 (pertaining to HAs)
therefore applies equally here. Apart from reiterating the same position
advanced with respect to claims 1 and 21, the Examiner has pointed to
nothing in Leung that expressly discloses that FAs are necessarily associated
with different gateway nodes as claimed.
For at least this additional reason, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 35.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013