Appeal 2007-1276
Application 10/001,446
identification" be "commonly vulnerable to at least one network exploit."
That is, a single node may have an identification assigned based on a logical
assignment which groups that single node alone. In such a case, there is
only one node that shares the identification, and that one node is commonly
vulnerable to at least one network exploit. In other words, a single node
satisfies the plain language of the limitation of claim 1, "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."
Holloway teaches multiple managed hubs, where the hubs each run an
instance of an intrusion protection system application. (FF 1, 3-4.) Also, as
just discussed, a single managed hub meets the recited "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" limitation of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require the grouping
together of more than one managed hub or the sharing of a MAC address.
Thus, Holloway, teaches the "plurality of nodes" limitation as claimed.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Holloway.
Claims 2-7 were not argued separately, and stand or fall together with
claim 1.
With respect to claims 8-10, we agree with Appellants that Holloway
does not teach or suggest the limitation of "a network-based intrusion
protection system appliance dedicated to filtering inbound and outbound
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013