Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20100251237
Please help the USPTO examine the application by evaluating the relevance of the publicly submitted prior art to the patent application.
Peer To Patent forwards the Top 10 most relevant prior art submissions and their annotations to the USPTO.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Prior Art Detail
Summary / Description
| Summary / Description | A well known Internet protocol (TCP) published in September 1981 that contemplates some or all of the claims in this patent. |
Basic Information
| Type of Prior Art | Online Publication |
| URL | http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.... |
| Author/Creator | Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California for Defense Advanced Research Proj |
| Title | RFC 793 - Transmission Control Protocol |
| Publication Date | September 1981 |
| Publisher | |
| Directions to Document Location | |
| Additional Information | |
Notes / To Do
| Notes | |
Excerpt
Excerpt From the application: "automatically determining, by a request server executing on a processor of the multi-server processing environment, in response to recovery of the request server in which the request server is to process a new generation of one or more requests, whether there are one or more previous generations of requests of the request server that are outstanding"
From the prior art: 2.6: "When the TCP transmits a segment containing data, it puts a copy on a retransmission queue and starts a timer; when the acknowledgment for that data is received, the segment is deleted from the queue. If the acknowledgment is not received before the timer runs out, the segment is retransmitted" ... 2.3: This mechanism allows for straight-forward duplicate detection in the presence of retransmission".
From the application: "wherein the immunizing comprises:selecting, by the request server, one or more messages associated with one or more requests from the one or more previous generations of requests; andprocessing the one or more messages, the processing including deleting one or more messages or saving one or more messages, wherein concurrent to the immunizing one or more requests of the new generation of one or more requests are capable of being processed by the request server"
From the prior art: Definition of "receive window": "Segments containing sequence numbers entirely outside of this range are considered duplicates and discarded"
|
Relevance
Claims
1
Relevance
Claim entirely covered by prior art - see excerpt above.
Claim entirely covered by prior art - see excerpt above.
Claim Chart
All
3
Relevance
This is fully contemplated in the prior art document by: "A natural way to think about processing incoming segments is to imagine that they are first tested for proper sequence number (i.e., that their contents lie in the range of the expected "receive window" in the sequence number space) and then that they are generally queued and processed in sequence number order.
When a segment overlaps other already received segments we reconstruct the segment to contain just the new data, and adjust the header fields to be consistent".
This is fully contemplated in the prior art document by: "A natural way to think about processing incoming segments is to imagine that they are first tested for proper sequence number (i.e., that their contents lie in the range of the expected "receive window" in the sequence number space) and then that they are generally queued and processed in sequence number order.
When a segment overlaps other already received segments we reconstruct the segment to contain just the new data, and adjust the header fields to be consistent".
Claim Chart
All
10
Relevance
This is a result of the algorithm in the prior art document, as duplicates outside of the window range are 'discarded' (see excerpt), and overlapping segments in the window range are merged - leaving the requestors unaware of the duplicates.
This is a result of the algorithm in the prior art document, as duplicates outside of the window range are 'discarded' (see excerpt), and overlapping segments in the window range are merged - leaving the requestors unaware of the duplicates.
Claim Chart
All
11
Relevance
As for claim 1
As for claim 1
Claim Chart
All
18
Relevance
As for claim 1.
As for claim 1.
Claim Chart
All
0 days left
