Appeal 2007-1276
Application 10/001,446
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A network having an intrusion protection
system, comprising:
a network medium;
a management node connected to the
network medium and running an intrusion
prevention system management application; and
a plurality of nodes connected to the
network medium and running an instance of an
intrusion protection system application, at least
one of the nodes having an identification assigned
thereto based on a logical assignment grouping one
or more of the plurality of nodes, each node
sharing an identification being commonly
vulnerable to at least one network exploit.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Holloway 5,905,859 May 18, 1999
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Holloway.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013