Appeal 2007-0351
Application 09/963,737
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Adelman US 6,078,957 Jun. 20, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 21 to 321under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based upon the teachings of Adelman.
Appellants contend that Adelman does not teach determining a
primary load balancer and a backup load balancer in response to the receipt
of a communication, and does not teach storing an identity of the primary
load balancer and the backup load balancer in each of the plurality of load
balancers for that communication. (Br. 5 and 6).
We reverse.
ISSUE
Does Adelman describe a method and system in which a primary load
balancer and a backup load balancer are selected to handle a communication,
and a method and system in which the identities of the two noted load
balancers are stored in each of the plurality of load balancers?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants describe a system and method that designates a primary
load balancer and a backup load balancer to handle a communication from a
client. The identities of the two load balancers are stored in all of the load
balancers in the system. If the primary load balancer is not available to
handle the communication, then the backup load balancer acts to transmit
the communication to at least one of a plurality of servers.
Adelman describes a method and apparatus for TCP/IP load balancing
in an Internet Protocol (IP) network clustering system (Fig. 6, col. 1, ll. 15 to
19). The method and apparatus in Adelman operates with a single master of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013