Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
Claims 1, 7-10, 15-17, 20, and 21
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7-10, 15-17,
20, and 21 as being anticipated by Gbadegesin. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stands or falls together, we will select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Gbadegesin does not disclose performing packet
modification within a network controller of a server nor the selection of an
alternate destination node by the network controller. More particularly,
Appellants argue that Gbadegesin’s packet modification is performed by
kernel-mode translation module 106 (Fig. 9) under the direction of user-
mode application 104, where translation module 106 and application 104
both execute within the same processing system (e.g., personal computer 20,
Fig. 1). Appellants further argue that Gbadegesin describes kernel-mode
translation module 106 as a Windows 2000 driver registered as a Windows
Firewall driver (co1. 6, line 64, et seq.). Appellants point out that no
mention is made of a processor and program instructions within
Gbadegesin’s network interface 53 for performing gNAT [i.e., generalized
Network Address Translation] within network interface 53 itself. Appellants
note that even in the more generalized multi-server embodiment of Fig. 11,
the gNAT function is performed by server load balancing application 134
executing within server 140 (col. 9, ll. 44-49). (Br. 7-9).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Appellants have
mistakenly concluded that Gbadegesin’s packet modification is only
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013