Appeal No. 1999-1583
Application No. 08/377,390
a monitor process associated with the function being
performed across the plurality of service processes which
service processes run independently of the monitor process,
the monitor process being coupled to receive messages from the
plurality of export processes including messages from an
export process about the state of one or more service
processes performing the function, the monitor process also
being coupled to send messages to the export process to
control the plurality of service processes; and
a control means for instantiating a new export process if
a message is received that one or more of the service
processes being monitored has failed. 1
The examiner relies on the following references:
Freund 5,095,421 Mar. 10, 1992
Fuchs et al. [Fuchs] 5,440,726 Aug. 08, 1995
(filed June 22, 1994)
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and
second paragraphs.
Claim 3 stands further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
anticipated by Fuchs.
Claim 3 stands still further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Freund.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
1While the amendment to claim 3, filed May 2, 1997, has
not been physically entered into the record, it is clear, from
the Advisory Action of May 13, 1997 and from paragraph 8 of
page 2 of the Examiner’s answer, that the amendment is
intended to be entered and that this is a correct copy of the
claim being appealed.
3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007