Appeal No. 96-1229
Application 08/104,819
message queue in a different processing node. The mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor. Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS
Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 8.
Claim 5 requires a first data processing node containing
a first message queue and a second data processing node
containing a second message queue. Messages from the first
node to the second node are written into the message queue in
the first node to be read remotely by the second node, and
messages from the second node to the first node are written
into the message queue in the second node to be read remotely
by the first node.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007