Ex Parte Craddock et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-0375                                                                              
                Application 09/886,186                                                                        
                                             INTRODUCTION                                                     
                      The claims are directed to passing data on a system area network                        
                (SAN).  The invention utilizes data in an InfiniBand (IB) protocol that is                    
                passed to an Internet Protocol (IP) router attached to an external network                    
                that utilizes an IP networking protocol.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                            
                1.  A method of transmitting data packets from a system area network                          
                device to an external network device, comprising:                                             
                                                                                                             
                passing data generated by a host process to a host channel adapter that                       
                utilizes an InfiniBand (IB) protocol as its networking protocol for data                      
                communications; and                                                                           
                passing the data from the host channel adapter directly to an Internet                        
                Protocol (IP) router that uses IP as its networking protocol for data                         
                communications, the router being connected directly to the host channel                       
                adapter, the router also being coupled to an external network that utilizes IP                
                as its networking protocol for data communications.                                           

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                       
                unpatentability:                                                                              
                Karpoff   US 2001/0049740 A1  Dec. 6, 2001                                                    
                Acharya   US 6,459,698 B1   Oct. 1, 2002                                                      
                Pettey    US 2004/0128398 A1    Jul. 1, 2004                                                  


                      The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:                             
                   1. Claims 1-25, 27-31, 33-37, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C                        
                      § 103(a) as unpatentable over Acharya and Pettey.                                       
                   2. Claims 26, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as                           
                      unpatentable over Acharya, Pettey, and Karpoff.                                         

                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013