Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
bandwidth] being greater than a threshold.” The third issue, therefore, is
whether generating dummy messages based on dead space in the
communication bandwidth would have been obvious in view of Nordenstam,
Cory, and Munger. We agree with Appellants that the teachings or
suggestions of Munger are limited to traffic flow and not bandwidth, since
the two do not have a direct relationship such that one would have been
obvious from the other. Therefore, we will reverse the obviousness rejection
of claim 5.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Appellants contend (Br. 27) that Munger
teaches generating bogus messages based on time or on the number of
messages received rather than on the computational load of the host
computer. The fourth issue, accordingly, is whether it would have been
obvious in view of Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger to generate dummy
messages based on the load of the host computer. However, Appellants
(Specification 9:6-8) state that the load balancer computes an estimated load
on the store host computer from the number of messages received from the
terminals. As discussed supra, in the combination of Nordenstam, Cory, and
Munger, dummy messages are generated based on the number of messages
received by the host computer. Munger further discloses (Munger, col. 12,
ll. 23-25) that dummy data “can also help to level the load on inactive
portions of the Internet to help foil traffic analysis efforts.” Thus, Munger
alludes to generating bogus messages during dead space intervals based on a
determined load. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, in view of the
suggestion of Munger, to calculate the load on the store host from the
number of messages received and to generate bogus messages during dead
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013