Appeal No. 1997-3429
Application 08/307,212
No. 14) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 12)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together.
Method claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
Appellants argue that two differences exist between the
subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art of Johnson and
Lampson: (1) "dynamically registering said subordinate
coordinators with the coordinator of said superior domain
only when the subordinate coordinator is coordinating
resources that are modifiable by a transaction"; and
(2) "sending a [sic] transaction messages from superior
coordinators only to registered, directly subordinate
coordinators, thereby reducing message traffic."
The Examiner admits that "Johnson does not state that
messages are sent to only subordinate coordinators with
modified [sic, modifiable] resources" (FR3; EA3) and, thus,
appears to agree that Johnson does not teach the two
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007