Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
involving Bommareddy’s switches and routers has little or no nexus to
Bommareddy’s database server. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that
the cited combination of Gbadegesin and Bommareddy does not fairly teach
or suggest building a database within a server of alternate destinations for
packet data (claims 3-5). We agree with Appellants that the cited
combination of Gbadegesin and Bommareddy does not fairly teach or
suggest building within a network controller a database of alternate
destinations for packet data (claims 11 and 18). We further agree with
Appellants that the cited combination of Gbadegesin and Bommareddy does
not fairly teach or suggest transferring a database to a network controller
(claims 12 and 13) (see discussion of claim 22 supra). Accordingly, we will
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14-17, and
19-21, but we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 11-13, 18, 22,
and 23. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-23 is
affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013