Appeal 2007-0349
Application 09/862,355
specific number of proxied sessions to occur at any one time. When the
corporation exceeds this number it is either cut off or charged a higher fee.
The invention in Sitaraman involves keeping track of the number of
proxied sessions corresponding to a group of users (col. 3, ll. 21-37):
The local database contains a group identification such as a domain
identification corresponding to a group of users, a maximum number
of proxied sessions to provide the group of users at the PoP and a
dynamic proxy session count corresponding to active proxied sessions
currently provided to the group of users at the PoP. . . . Actions are
taken when the group attempts to exceed either the local maximum
number of sessions or the network-wide maximum number of sessions
by more than a predetermined number. The actions may include
assessing extra charges, denying access, and sending warning
messages to appropriate recipients.
Claims 1-8 and 14-16
Arguments and rejection
Appellant argues that "the proxy session count limitation of the
Sitaraman et al. patent is not described as limiting a maximum number of
sessions with respect to a particular client process (identified for example,
based on a source identity or IP address)" (Br. 6). Appellant argues that
Sitaraman "specifically recites using 'a group identification such as a domain
identification corresponding to a group of users' to limit a maximum number
of proxied sessions provided to the group of users at the PoP" (id.) and "does
not teach or suggest limiting a maximum number of sessions with respect to
a particular client process as identified, for example, based on a source
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013