Appeal 2007-1784
Application 09/777,609
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
upon the teachings of Baskey.
Appellants contend that “[b]ecause Baskey only discloses FTR-CRs
‘100, 105’ that merely route IP packets, Baskey does not teach[,] disclose or
suggest hosting ‘a network connection’ as recited by amended Claim 1”
(Br. 6).
ISSUE
Does Baskey teach replicating network connection status data of a
network connection hosted by the active process from the active process to
the standby process?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Examiner made a finding that Baskey teaches “replicating
network connection status data of a connection hosted by the active process
from the active process to the standby process (i.e., the Synchronization
Manager ‘SM’ 220 of the active Fault Tolerance Recoverable TCP/IP
Connection Router ‘FTR-CR’ 100 synchronizes the relevant internal data of
its local FTR-CR with the SM of the standby FTR-CR 105 and sends
periodic updates to the standby FTR-CR 105 to maintain the configuration
and connection tables 106’-107’ of the standby FTR-CR 105 identical to
and synchronized with the connection tables 106-107 of the active FTR-CR
100) (Baskey, Figs. 1-2, C4: L54-67, C5: L67 - C6:L4 and C6: L35-50)”
(Final Rejection 3).
As indicated supra, the Appellants contend that Baskey does not teach
the claimed invention because he is merely routing IP packets via TCP/IP
network connections (Br. 4 to 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013