Appeal No. 2004-1560
Application 09/318,722
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Yu.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Martin.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 10 and 12)
and the answer (paper number 11) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 2,
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 9.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection, Yu discloses a
method for operating a server cluster 103 comprising server nodes
161 through 163 to service requests from client requestors 110
through 153 (Figure 1). Each server node 161 through 163 is
identified by an address on a network 105 connecting the noted
client requestors to the server nodes. The Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) of the object requested is used in the selection
of the correct server in the server cluster 103 to handle the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007