Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
We note that we have found supra that Gbadegesin performs packet
modification for connection forwarding within a network controller of a
server, as claimed (see discussion of claim 1 supra). Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 14, and 19 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Gbadegesin in view of
Bommareddy for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
independent claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3-5,
11-13, and 18 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Gbadegesin in
view of Bommareddy.
Appellants essentially restate the argument that the cited prior art does
not disclose transferring (or building) a database, as claimed (Br. 11-15).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner broadly corresponds the
recited “database” to Gbadegesin’s gNAT, as shown in figs. 8-11. The
Examiner again 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. In particular, we note that the Examiner fails to
address the Bommareddy reference in response to Appellants’ arguments
(Answer 18-19), even though the Examiner relies on Bommareddy in the
rejection. For example, the Examiner relies on Bommareddy for allegedly
teaching program instructions for building within the network controller a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013