Appeal No. 96-3077
Application No. 08/255,544
Appellant argues on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief with respect
to
the Gammage et al. reference
The inclusion of a “locale and node” in the
“remote taskid” provides routing information
within that taskid. Thus the routing is
internal in the sending task and not external
as presently claimed.
In response to this argument by Appellant, the Examiner
(Answer, pages 4 and 5) initially points to statements in
Appellant’s Brief and in Gammage et al. relating to
transparency between communicating tasks in the system
described in Gammage et al. In the Examiner’s view, the
Appellant’s admission on page 9, lines 1-5 of the Brief that
each task in Gammage et al. need not know the actual location
of other tasks with which it wishes to communicate supports
the Examiner’s position that no internal message path
selection is present in Gammage et al.
After careful review, however, we are of the opinion that
the Examiner has misconstrued Appellant’s statements on page 9
of the Brief and the Gammage et al. reference. We note the
following statement from page 18, col. 1, lines 6-12 of
Gammage et al. referenced by the Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007