Appeal No. 1998-3329 Page 4
Application No. 08/261,518
computer, and controlling the second computer to
execute the process.
(Appeal Br. at 14.)
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) 5,577,252 Nov.
19, 1996
(filed July 28, 1993)
Radia et al. (“Radia”), The Per-Process View of Naming
and Remote Execution, IEEE Parallel & Distributed
Technology, Aug. 1993, pp 71-79.
Claims 44-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Nelson in view of Radia. Rather than reiterate the
arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the brief and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 44-59. Accordingly, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007