Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
Server computer for the files system is connected to the network LAN through two network
interfaces, P and S, but as appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 4): "Nothing in Bhide et al. discloses
or suggests that either of the servers connects either of the clients to the network." It is not clear
whether the examiner considers one Server to be a first means for connecting and the other Server
to be the second means for connecting, or whether the examiner considers adapters P and S on one
Server to be the first and second means for connecting. Under either interpretation, the Client is not
connected to the network LAN through the Server or adapters P and S on the Server.
We have spend some time trying understand the examiner's rejection. From the examiner's
statements about "interfaces with a network (via VG)" (Examiner's Answer, page 7) and that "the
Examiner asserts that the computer is connected to the network (i.e. VG) via redundant interfaces"
(Examiner's Answer, page 9), it appears that the examiner is trying to interpret the volume group VG
as the network, instead of the LAN in Bhide. A volume group is a collection of mass storage
volumes, which are disks in Bhide (page 200, right col.). Bhide expressly identifies the network as
the LAN. The examiner has not explained how VG constitutes a network. Assuming, arguendo, that
VG was a network (i.e., a network of disks), such interpretation does not satisfy other limitations of
the claims. For example, the claim recitation about "first and second identifiers for uniquely
identifying said first and second means for connecting said computer to said network" requires the
identifier to be an identifier from the perspective of the network to the connecting means; the network
identifiers in Bhide are from the LAN to the Server, not from VG to the Server.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007