Appeal No. 1999-1583
Application No. 08/377,390
It is clear that the examiner is repeating the rejection
that was made in the final rejection prior to the amendment of
May 2, 1997. That amendment made it clear that a monitor
process was not run independently of the monitor process
itself but, rather, that “a monitor process associated with
the function being performed across the plurality of service
processes which service processes run independently of the
monitor process,...” [emphasis ours]. Thus, it is the service
processes which are run independently of the monitor process.
There is no allegation by the examiner that this is not
supported by the original disclosure. Further, when read in
light of the amended language, it is also clear that there is
no indefiniteness with regard to claim 1.
We now turn to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
102(e). It is the examiner’s contention that Fuchs comprises
a fault tolerant monitoring and control distributed processing
network having a plurality of processes, identifying Figures
1, 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b of Fuchs. The examiner contends that
Fuchs discloses a monitor process means at column 2, lines 42
et seq., column 7, lines 32 et seq. and column 13, lines 31 et
seq. Finally, the examiner contends that Fuchs teaches a
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007