Mobius Claim

Patent Prospector:
6,879,830
goes to “a method for handing over a link between” base stations for a
mobile phone. Actually, a mobile phone is claimed, an apparatus, but
where a claimed networking method must be performed for
the claimed handover to occur. Thus the meat of the claims are of a
method, though the claim is of an
apparatus, which is a transgression of §112 ¶2, indefiniteness, for
mixed claim types, vis-à-vis IPXL
v. Amazon
.
So this ruling is easy. But not so fast. Consistency is the hobgoblin
of small minds. As
there are no small minds on the CAFC, there is no need for consistency.

HTC v. IPCom (CAFC 2011-1004)
precedential; Judges Bryson, Linn and O’Malley (author)

HTC sued IPCom in 2008 and sought a declaration that it did not
infringe a valid and enforceable claim of one of IPCom’s patents. IPCom
filed a counterclaim and alleged infringement.

Claim 1:

1. [1] A mobile station for use with a network including a
first base
station and a second base station that achieves a handover from the
first base station to the second base station by: [2] storing link data
for a link in a first base station, [3] holding in reserve for the link
resources of the first base station, and [4] when the link is to be
handed over to the second base station: [5] initially maintaining a
storage of the link data in the first base station, [6] initially
causing the resources of the first base station to remain held in
reserve, and [7] at a later timepoint determined by a fixed period of
time predefined at a beginning of the handover, deleting the link data
from the first base station and freeing up the resources of the first
base station, the mobile station comprising: …