Appeal 2007-1099
Application 09/955,469
Appellant argues that neither Bruck nor Brendel teaches a method
wherein a message comprising a unique real network address of an assigned
server for a service session is transmitted to a remote computer, as required
by the language of the claim (Br. 5, emphasis in original). Appellant notes
that the claimed transmission of a real network address of the assigned
server to a remote computer is performed to avoid the load balancer
altogether in subsequent transmissions from the remote computer to the
assigned server during the server session (Br. 7, emphasis added). Thus,
subsequent communications [i.e., occurring after the initial communication
from the remote computer to the load balancer] are performed directly
between the remote computer [i.e., client] and the assigned server (Br. 7).
Appellant points out that subsequent [direct] communications between the
remote computer and the assigned server prevent the load balancer from
becoming a bottleneck (id.).
Appellant further argues that Bruck and Brendel both teach away from
a remote computer [i.e., client] using the real network address of an assigned
server during a service session. Appellant points out that in both Bruck and
Brendel, all remote user transmissions are directed to the server system’s
load balancer (or load balancing “front layer server system” as it is called in
Bruck) (Br. 7, emphasis in original).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that Bruck teaches a
packet-based message comprising the unique network address of the
assigned server (i.e., using dynamically assignable Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses for each subnet) to enable the remote user (i.e., client) to address
subsequent messages during the service session. The Examiner points out
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013