Appeal 2007-1099
Application 09/955,469
among the front-layer machines (see col. 3, ll. 3-5). Thus, Bruck’s front-
layer servers communicate with each other such that automatic dynamic
traffic assignment reconfiguration occurs in response to machines being
added or deleted from the cluster with no loss in functionality (see col. 3, ll.
25-29).
After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find that Bruck’s
front server layer (functioning as a load balancer) maintains a persistent
connection between a particular client and a particular front-layer server
(i.e., load balancer) during a user session, so long as the particular front-
layer server does not fail. We note that alternate embodiments disclosed by
Bruck show data being passed to the servers after first passing through a
router (see e.g., col. 8, ll. 22-27, Fig. 3, col. 28, ll. 29-30, Fig. 15, and col.
34, ll. 1-4, Fig. 21). Thus, we find that Bruck’s client transmissions (i.e.,
from a remote user) are directed to the server system’s load balancer (i.e.,
the load balancing “front layer server system” shown in fig. 2).
After carefully reviewing the Bruck reference in its entirety, we find
no teaching where a packet-based message comprising the real (i.e.,
physical) network address of the assigned server for the remote (i.e., client)
computer is transmitted to the remote computer for the remote user to
address subsequent messages during the service session, as required by the
language of the claim.
We note the Examiner merely relies upon the secondary Brendel
reference for its teaching of a real (i.e., physical) network server address (see
Answer 4, see also Brendel, Fig. 17, abstract, col. 16, l. 46 through col. 17, l.
57). While we agree with the Examiner that Brendel teaches the real
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013