Appeal 2007-0349
Application 09/862,355
of users." Thus, while Sitaraman is relevant, it does not anticipate claim 14.
The rejection of claims 14-16 is reversed.
Claims 9-13
Arguments and rejection
The Examiner finds that Sitaraman teaches the claimed invention
except for "receiving within said FTP server process a request to establish a
new session from an FTP client process" and "determining, using the IP
address of the computing device, the number of presently active sessions
within said FTP server process previously established with FTP client
processes operating on said computing device." The Examiner finds that Lin
teaches a filter 106 which records the total number of existing sessions and
measures the rate of session requests of each stream, where "an abnormally
high number of session establishment attempts is usually an indication that a
denial of service (DoS) attack is occurring" (col. 2, ll. 12-14). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of
Lin into Sitaraman wherein the number of session requests within each
server process would be controlled.
Appellant argues that Lin uses a rate limiting mechanism to limit the
rate of session establishment packet submission (Br. 8). It is argued that
neither Lin nor Sitaraman teaches "determining, using the IP address of the
computing device, the number of presently active sessions within said FTP
server process previously established with FTP client processes operating on
said computing device" or "comparing said number of presently active
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013