Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
39 and all claims which stand or fall therewith (claims 6, 7,
43, 44, and 46) over Miller, Lowry, and Mathur.
For the second rejection, the examiner applies Driscoll
in place of Miller. The examiner asserts that Driscoll
teaches using a version number and a timestamp. Driscoll does
not involve updating a network. Driscoll relates to
translating computer programs from one language to another.
At the end of a translation, a comment with a timestamp and
identification of the particular version is added. As pointed
out by appellant (Brief, page 21), a comment line in a program
is merely to let the person using the program know what
version he is using. The comment line is not used for
determining whether or not an update should be performed on a
specific node in a distributed network. As Driscoll discloses
even less than Miller, and Lowry and Mathur are used the same
as when combined with Miller, clearly the combination of
Driscoll, Lowry, and Mathur, lacks disclosure of the claimed
method steps even more than the first combination of
references. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 39 and all claims which stand or fall therewith (claims
6, 7, 43, 44, and 46) over Driscoll, Lowry, and Mathur.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007