Appeal 2007-1784
Application 09/777,609
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner for claim 1.
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner for claims 2 to 13
because the Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims apart from the argument presented for claim 1 (Br. 6 and 7).
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 13 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
As noted by the majority, the Examiner reads the step of “replicating
network connection status data of a network connection hosted by the active
process from the active process to the standby process” (claim 1) on the
periodic updating of the data in connection table 106’ of standby FTR-CR
105 with the data from connection table 106 of active FTR-CR 100 (Final
Rejection 3). The Examiner characterizes the connection data stored in
these tables as representing “all network connection status data of the hosted
network connections” (Final Rejection 6) (emphasis modified).
Appellants’ sole argument against the rejection appears to be that the
data stored in connection tables 106 and 106’ does not represent network
connections that are “hosted” by the FTR-CUs and more particularly by the
active FTR-CR (100), as is required to satisfy the above-quoted “replicating”
step. I do not agree. The FTR-CR 100 distributes requests to a cluster of
servers 190 (col. 3, ll. 24-26). Appellant has not explained, and it is not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013