Appeal No. 1997-3429
Application 08/307,212
limitations. The best statement of the Examiner's position
is as follows (EA5-6):
Lampson et al shows [sic] a subordinate dynamically
registering itself with a coordinator by sending a read
vote (col. 9 line [sic] 64-65). Lampson states "the
subordinate who is now known to the coordinator as
"read-only" does not need to be sent a "commit" or
"abort" message by the coordinator (col. 10 lines 2-6).
The examiner submits that sending a vote is dynamic and
the subordinate being known (or being registered, since
a computer cannot know) by the coordinator is dynamic.
This registration eliminates further messages.
Appellants argue (Br12):
Lampson et al eliminate "commit" messages to
subordinates who respond to a "prepare" message with a
"read" response. This is not dynamic registration. In
the present invention, a subordinate that is not
registered is not even sent the "prepare"
message. . . . The subordinate coordinator of the
present invention is dynamically registered only when
an exported transaction is identified as able to modify
resources controlled by that subordinate.
Lampson does not disclose or suggest the claimed
differences. While we agree with the Examiner that the
"Read" vote causes dynamic registration of the subordinate
as "read-only," this is contrary to the express claim
language. Claim 1 recites "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"
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007