Appeal No. 96-3077
Application No. 08/255,544
Appellant that the inclusion of locale and node information in
the identification information of the remote task in Gammage
et al indicates that any message path selection must
necessarily be internal to the sending task.
In further response to Appellant’s arguments, the
Examiner refers to a “name server” discussed beginning at page
15, line 35 of Gammage et al. as providing a teaching of
message routing through an “external” task (Answer, page 5).
However, on review of this passage of Gammage et al., we are
of the view that, while such “name server” task may be
external to the sending and receiving tasks, no message path
selection is taking place. The name server described by
Gammage et al. on page 15 acts as a repository of remote task
identification information which can be accessed by a remote
task preparing to be invoked and by a sending task requiring
such remote task identification information. We can find no
message path selection performed by such name server in
Gammage et al., since, as discussed previously, a remote
rendezvous will have been internally selected by the coding of
a remote task identification into the sending task definition.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007