Ex parte Kurio

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 1997

07781422 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 1997)

Application for patent filed October 21, 1991, entitled "Method And Apparatus For1
Providing A Fault Tolerant Network Interface Controller."
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte KAY M. KURIO

Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,4221

ON BRIEF

Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
Note that the word "network" should be reinserted before the word "interface" in the2
preamble to provide proper antecedent basis. The word "network" was deleted in the amendment
received March 7, 1994 (Paper No. 9).
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-18, all
of the claims pending in the application.
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for providing a fault-tolerant network
interface for a computer. The computer has first and second connecting devices that connect it to
the network. Normally, the data flows between the computer and the network through the first
connecting device. When a fault is detected, the first network connecting device is disabled and its
address is reassigned to the second connecting device. Thereafter, data flow is provided between the
computer and the network through the second connecting device.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.2
1. An apparatus for providing a fault-tolerant interface for a computer, comprising:
first and second means for connecting said computer to said network, said first and
second means for connecting being provided, respectively, with first and second identifiers
for uniquely identifying said first and second means for connecting said computer to said
network, said first means for connecting being initially enabled so as to allow data to flow
between the network and said computer through said first means for connecting;
means for periodically detecting whether a fault has occurred in said first means for
connecting, said means for detecting causing a first message to be sent through said first
means for connecting to be received by said second means for connecting, and causing a
second message to be sent through said second means for connecting to be received by said
first means for connecting;
means for disabling said first means for connecting when said fault is detected;
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
Massey was issued with an incorrect specification. The Patent and Trademark Office issued3
a certificate of correction on May 14, 1991, replacing the title page and columns 1-10 of the
specification. Apparently, the examiner relies on the originally published specification which has
nothing to do with the drawings. A copy of Massey with the corrected specification is attached to
this decision.
- 3 -
means for substituting, in said second means for connecting, said first identifier for
said second identifier when said fault is detected; and
means for enabling, when said fault is detected, said second means for connecting so
as to allow data to flow between said network and said computer through said second means
for connecting.
The examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Massey, Jr. et al. (Massey ) 5,016,244 May 14, 19913
Bhide et al., A Highly Available Network File Server, USENIX, Winter 1991, Dallas, TX,
pages 199-205 (Bhide).
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15, and 17-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Bhide.
Claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bhide and Massey.
OPINION
We reverse.
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 4 -
Appellant argues that Bhide does not anticipate independent claims 1-3 and 11 because it fails
to teach, at least, "first and second means for connecting a single computer to a network, where when
the first means for connecting fails, the same computer communicates with the network through the
second means for communicating" (Brief, pages 6-7). We agree that this basic architectural limitation
is not taught by Bhide.
Bhide was cited by appellant in the specification, page 3, as an example of a system which
provides control of the redundancy of a file system. Appellant accurately describes the teachings and
deficiencies of Bhide at page 7 of the brief. Bhide is directed to a fault-tolerant file server, not a fault
tolerant network interface. As shown in the Highly Available Network File Server (HA-NFS) of
figure 1, Client computers are connected to a network LAN via a single primary adapter P. A Client
computer cannot be the computer of the claims because it has only a single connection P to the
network LAN.
Two Server computers are network file servers providing access to files located on disks in
volume groups VG. "NFS clients perceive an HA-NFS node as two independent NFS servers, each
serving a distinct set of file systems" (page 200, right col.). Each server has two network interfaces,
primary adapter P and secondary adapter S. "The server uses its primary interface for normal
operation, and its secondary interface when impersonating the other server after its failure" (page 200,
right col.). "If a server fails, its disks will be taken over by the other server" (page 201, left col.).
The live server impersonates the failed server by changing the IP address of its secondary network
interface to the primary address of the failed server and changing the hardware address of its
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 5 -
secondary interface to that of the primary interface of the failed server (page 201, left col.). Bhide
deals with failed file servers, not a failed network interface (P or S) to a computer. When a Server
computer fails, its address and functions are taken over by the other Server, which is then connected
to the network LAN by two connecting devices at once. A Server computer cannot be the computer
of the claims because, although it has two connections P and S to the network LAN, as appellant
correctly argues (Brief, page 7): "The secondary connecting device for one computer is not
substituted for the primary connecting device of that same computer, as in the claimed invention."
Because none of the computers in Bhide are connected to the network LAN by two connections, one
of which may be substituted for the other, the examiner erred in finding anticipation of the
independent claims.
The examiner finds that Bhide discloses "a computer (client), a first and second means for
connection (Fig. 1, server)" (Examiner's Answer, page 4) and "[i]n figure 1, Bhide clearly has a
computer (client) connected to a first and second network interface devices (server)" (Examiner's
Answer, page 8). These findings do not fit the claim language. The independent claims all require
"first and second means for connecting said computer to said network" wherein the first means is
enabled "so as to allow data to flow between said network and said computer through first means for
connecting" and the second means is enabled "so as to allow data to flow between said network and
said computer through second means for connecting." This language manifestly requires that the first
and second means be connected between the computer and the network. In Bhide, the Client
computer is connected to the LAN network though only a single primary adapter connection P. The
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 6 -
Server computer for the files system is connected to the network LAN through two network
interfaces, P and S, but as appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 4): "Nothing in Bhide et al. discloses
or suggests that either of the servers connects either of the clients to the network." It is not clear
whether the examiner considers one Server to be a first means for connecting and the other Server
to be the second means for connecting, or whether the examiner considers adapters P and S on one
Server to be the first and second means for connecting. Under either interpretation, the Client is not
connected to the network LAN through the Server or adapters P and S on the Server.
We have spend some time trying understand the examiner's rejection. From the examiner's
statements about "interfaces with a network (via VG)" (Examiner's Answer, page 7) and that "the
Examiner asserts that the computer is connected to the network (i.e. VG) via redundant interfaces"
(Examiner's Answer, page 9), it appears that the examiner is trying to interpret the volume group VG
as the network, instead of the LAN in Bhide. A volume group is a collection of mass storage
volumes, which are disks in Bhide (page 200, right col.). Bhide expressly identifies the network as
the LAN. The examiner has not explained how VG constitutes a network. Assuming, arguendo, that
VG was a network (i.e., a network of disks), such interpretation does not satisfy other limitations of
the claims. For example, the claim recitation about "first and second identifiers for uniquely
identifying said first and second means for connecting said computer to said network" requires the
identifier to be an identifier from the perspective of the network to the connecting means; the network
identifiers in Bhide are from the LAN to the Server, not from VG to the Server.
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 7 -
The examiner also states (Examiner's Answer, page 7): "Appellants claims are of such breadth
that it [sic] encompasses all of the computers in a network (i.e. host, clients, and workstations etc.),
which interfaces with any other segment/device in a network via redundant means." The independent
claims all expressly require that a computer interface to a network through first and second
connecting means, not to just any device in a network, such as the volume group VG. We agree with
the examiner that Bhide is highly relevant because it teaches changing the address of a normally
unused secondary interface to the primary address of a failed server, but Bhide does not anticipate
because it does not teach connecting a computer to a network through two connecting means where
one of the connecting means may substitute for the other.
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 8 -
The examiner errs in finding that the independent claims are anticipated by Bhide and,
accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 11 is reversed. Because the dependent claims incorporate
by reference all the limitations of the independent claims, the rejections of the dependent claims are
reversed. In summary, the rejections of claims 1-18 are reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-5040
Application 07/781,422
- 9 -
GRAHAM & JAMES, L.L.P.
600 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1043