Appeal 2007-1099
Application 09/955,469
network address of a server (see Brendel, Fig. 17, col. 16, ll. 49-53), we
nevertheless find that Brendel fails to overcome the deficiencies of Bruck.
Therefore, we find the evidence supports Appellant’s contention that
in both Bruck and Brendel, all of the remote user transmissions are directed
to the server system’s load balancer (or equivalent load balancing “front
layer server system” as taught by Bruck) (see Br. 7). For at least the
aforementioned reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 as being unpatentable over Bruck in view of Brendel.
Because independent claims 17 and 30 each recite equivalent
limitations, we will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over Bruck in view of Brendel for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
With respect to the rejection of independent claim 35, we note the
Examiner merely relies upon the tertiary Bowman-Amuah reference for its
teaching of Internet telephony service, and multiple-user gaming and music-
sharing applications (see Answer 12). After carefully reviewing the
Bowman-Amuah reference, we find nothing in Bowman-Amuah that
overcomes the deficiencies of Bruck as modified by Brendel, as discussed
supra with respect to claim 1. Because independent claim 35 recites
equivalent limitations to independent claims 1, 17, and 30, we will also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 as being unpatentable over
Bruck in view of Brendel, and further in view of Bowman-Amuah for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013