Appeal No. 2003-0334
Application No. 09/519,964
repeats his position that the claimed invention would have been
obvious to the artisan in view of the collective teachings of
Masters and Kim [answer, pages 8-10].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 10 and 14 for essentially the reasons
argued by appellants in the brief. The claimed invention recites
that when a new domain name is received, new entries in a
directory are created for all components that do not exist in the
directory, and a real domain service record in a domain name
server associated with the directory server is automatically
updated. As argued by appellants, Masters relates to updating
routing table information as new information is received.
Masters teaches nothing about receiving information related to a
new domain name. The fact that domain names per se were well
known provides no basis to modify Masters to base the routing
table on domain name information. As noted by appellants, the
routing in Masters relates to source and destination points which
are already known to the system. Masters simply determines the
optimum path in which to route the information. There is no
suggestion in Masters or Kim of receiving new domain names and
then creating entries in a directory and updating a domain
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007