Appeal 2007-1276
Application 10/001,446
FF 5.) We also agree with the Examiner that the network management
station inherently runs an intrusion prevention management application in
order to perform its monitoring function. (Answer 3, 6; FF 5.) Thus,
Holloway teaches a management node connected to the network medium
and running an intrusion prevention system management application, as
claimed.
Appellants next argue that Holloway does not teach or suggest "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,"
as claimed. (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3-4.)
The Examiner found that the managed hubs of Holloway meet the
recited "plurality of nodes" limitation, where each managed hub is a node
and the MAC address is the identification. (Answer 3, 6.) Appellants assert
that the managed hubs cannot meet the "plurality of nodes" limitation
because the managed hubs are not grouped together. (Br. 6; Reply Br. 3.)
Appellants admit that "the MAC address provides an identification of a
computer," but contend that "Holloway does not teach that nodes sharing
such an identification (i.e., sharing a MAC address) are commonly
vulnerable to at least one network exploit." (Reply Br. 4.)
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the plain language of claim 1
merely requires that "at least one of the nodes" (emphasis added) have an
identification assigned "based on a logical assignment grouping one or more
of the plurality of nodes" (emphasis added), and that "each node sharing an
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013