Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
Appellant argues that Bhide does not anticipate independent claims 1-3 and 11 because it fails
to teach, at least, "first and second means for connecting a single computer to a network, where when
the first means for connecting fails, the same computer communicates with the network through the
second means for communicating" (Brief, pages 6-7). We agree that this basic architectural limitation
is not taught by Bhide.
Bhide was cited by appellant in the specification, page 3, as an example of a system which
provides control of the redundancy of a file system. Appellant accurately describes the teachings and
deficiencies of Bhide at page 7 of the brief. Bhide is directed to a fault-tolerant file server, not a fault
tolerant network interface. As shown in the Highly Available Network File Server (HA-NFS) of
figure 1, Client computers are connected to a network LAN via a single primary adapter P. A Client
computer cannot be the computer of the claims because it has only a single connection P to the
network LAN.
Two Server computers are network file servers providing access to files located on disks in
volume groups VG. "NFS clients perceive an HA-NFS node as two independent NFS servers, each
serving a distinct set of file systems" (page 200, right col.). Each server has two network interfaces,
primary adapter P and secondary adapter S. "The server uses its primary interface for normal
operation, and its secondary interface when impersonating the other server after its failure" (page 200,
right col.). "If a server fails, its disks will be taken over by the other server" (page 201, left col.).
The live server impersonates the failed server by changing the IP address of its secondary network
interface to the primary address of the failed server and changing the hardware address of its
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007