Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
servers to maintain load balancing (col. 10, ll. 5-7). Because we find that
Gbadegesin discloses all that is claimed, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Gbadegesin.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to the claims 7-10, 15-17, 20, and 21 on the basis of the selected
claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims as being anticipated by Gbadegesin for the same reasons discussed
supra with respect to representative claim 1.
Independent claim 22
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 as
being anticipated by Gbadegesin.
Appellants argue that Gbadegesin does not disclose transferring a
database of alternate destinations for packet data to a network controller of a
server (Br. 9-11).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues it is well known in the
art that a Network Address Translator (NAT) includes a table that stores
network addresses for mapping and translating packet addresses. The
Examiner further asserts that a NAT is inherently known to contain a
network address table for mapping and redirecting destinations. Thus, the
Examiner reads the recited “database” on Gbadegesin’s gNAT, as shown in
figs. 8-11 (Answer 18-19).
We will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22 for
essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants. While we agree with the
Examiner that Gbadegesin’s gNAT likely references a network address table
for the purpose of performing redirection, we note that our reviewing court
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013