Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
denial-of-service attacks (i.e, “demand of service attacks”), such as those
disclosed by AAPA at paragraph 7:
[0007] In a data processing system, it is important that
IOAs, or parts of IOAs, not be able to gain access to the
interrupt resources of other IOAs or other parts of IOAs.
Isolation of IOA interrupt resources is important, for
example, to prevent a demand of service attack by one
IOA that can result in an overall system breakdown. In
an LPAR data processing system environment, in
particular, it is important that interrupt resources not be
shared between IOAs because doing so will restrict the
ability to assign the IOAs, or parts of IOAs, to different
partitions of the system [emphasis added].
(Specification, “Description of Related Art,” ¶ 7).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the proffered combination
would have been an advantageous improvement to Holm, since the
combined system of Holm and AAPA would have provided protection
against denial-of-service attacks. Thus, when we take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have employed, we conclude the Examiner has articulated an adequate
reasoning with a rational underpinning that reasonably supports the legal
conclusion of obviousness.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner
has met the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1 as being as being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal
with respect to the remaining claims in this group on the basis of the selected
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013