Appeal No. 2002-2168 Page 9
Application No. 08/961,743
"Furthermore, the client need not invoke a binding release service because the
scheduler has coordinated with the transaction manager. Via their pre-established
agreement, the transaction manager notifies the scheduler that the transaction is over
so the server may be released." Id. at ll. 23-28.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Greenwood
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Drury. Absent a teaching or suggestion of a
manager that assigns computing threads to sessions, we are unpersuaded of a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejections of claim 1
and claims 3-5, 7-11, 34, 35, 40, 43, 46, 82, and 83, which depend therefrom;
of claim 12 and claims 14-16, 18-22, 36, 37, 41, 44, 47 which depend therefrom;
of claim 23 and claims 25-27, 29-33, 38, 39, 42, 45, 48 which depend therefrom;
of claim 49 and claims 50-59, which depend therefrom; of claim 60 and claims 61-70,
which depend therefrom; of claim 71 and claims 72-81, which depend therefrom;
and of claim 84.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 18, 40-42, 49, 54, 60, 65, 71, and 76 under
§ 112 ¶ 2, is reversed. The rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18-23, 25-27, and
29-84 under § 103(a) are also reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007