Ex Parte Phan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

11408485 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICKY PHAN
____________

Appeal 2010-006263
Application 11/408,485
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006263
Application 11/408,485

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to network data processing systems for
data recovery and operation during disaster recovery (see Spec. ¶ [0005]).

Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and
reads as follows:
1. A method for directing access to a server data
processing system, comprising:
storing a first uniform resource locator associated with a
first network address, where the first network address
corresponds to a server data processing system;
storing a second uniform resource locator associated with
a second network address, where the second network address
corresponds to a disaster recovery server data processing
system;
returning the first network address in response to calls for
the first uniform resource locator when the server data
processing system is operating normally; and
updating the first uniform resource locator to be
associated with the second network address and returning the
second network address in response to calls for the first uniform
resource locator when the server data processing system is
unavailable.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jorgenson (US 6,813,635 B1).
Appeal 2010-006263
Application 11/408,485

3
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1 because Jorgenson’s disclosure in columns 4-6 teaches that an IP address
of a different site is returned if a specific requested site is not operational,
instead of the claimed step of updating a stored first uniform resource
locator (URL) to be associated with the second network address (App. Br.
12). Appellant relies on paragraph 26 of the instant Specification for
describing updating the Domain Name System (DNS) entry to point to the
IP address of the server 240 if the server 230 becomes unavailable and
asserts that returning the IP address of a second site in Jorgenson is not
updating the first URL (App. Br. 13). Appellant further argues the
patentability of independent claims 8 and 15 by relying on the same reasons
discussed for claim 1 (App. Br. 14).
2. With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Appellant contends that
Jorgenson does not teach “the second uniform resource locator is a
subdomain of the first uniform resource locator” because the cited portions
of Jorgenson in columns 5, 12, and 13 disclose site and group domain names
whereas a site URL is not a sub-domain of the group URL (App. Br. 14).
3. Regarding claims 5 and 19, Appellant contends that the claims
are not anticipated by Jorgenson because the cited portions in columns 4 and
12 of the reference indicate that the step of storing takes place at initial
configuration, instead of when the server data processing system is
unavailable (App. Br. 15).

Appeal 2010-006263
Application 11/408,485

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the rebuttals to arguments expressed by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (see Ans. 6-7).
With respect to Appellant’s first contention, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 6), that Jorgenson returns a second IP address if the first IP
address for a DNS name is unavailable (see Jorgenson, col. 12, ll. 19-29 and
59-65). As further explained by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Jorgenson describes
that “the IP address of a first site is returned as long as that site is
operational; otherwise, the IP address of a second site within that same pool
is returned instead.” Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s position (App. Br.
13 and Reply Br. 2) that the claim term “updating” requires specific
changes, and to the extent disclosed in paragraph 26 of Appellant’s
Specification, the mechanism of updating merely refers to pointing to the
new IP address which includes returning a second IP address for the first
URL. Similarly, the cited portions in columns 5, 6, and 12 of Jorgenson
indicate updating the first URL when the second IP address is returned in
response to calls for the first URL.
Regarding Appellant’s second and third contentions, we agree with
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Ans. 7).

Appeal 2010-006263
Application 11/408,485

5
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jorgenson.
2. Claims 1-21 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 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

tj