Appeal 2007-0375
Application 09/886,186
Router 20 contains HCA 90 (Fig. 4). However, as noted in the first
sentence of Acharya’s Abstract, the router is configured for sending and
receiving data packets on an InfiniBand™ network, in addition to its
function of serving as a bridge between an IP network and the InfiniBand™
network. In Acharya’s system, router 20 (Figs. 1, 4) communicates with
HCA 12 (Figs. 1, 2) via switch 12 (Fig. 1). HCA 12 receives data from a
CPU (e.g., Fig 1; ref. 16) and communicates over the network in accordance
with the InfiniBand™ Architecture Specification. Col. 4, ll. 4-13; col. 7, ll.
6-16.
Host channel adapter 12 of Acharya thus passes data to IP router 20.
Representative claim 1 further requires, however, that the router be
“connected directly” to the host channel adapter. According to Appellants’
Brief (at 6), the router being “connected directly” to the host channel adapter
is described at Specification page 4, lines 3 through 17 and page 35, lines 21
through 27.
In light of Appellants’ Specification, a “direct” connection does not
preclude a switch between the host channel adapter and the IP router.
Moreover, even if we compare disclosure to disclosure, we note the
similarities between instant Figure 1 (HCA 124 connected to IP router 117
via switch 114) and Acharya’s Figure 1 (HCA 12 connected to IP router 20
via switch 22).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments but are not
persuaded that representative claim 1 has been rejected in error. We sustain
the rejection of claims 1-25, 27-31, 33-37, and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Acharya and Pettey.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013