Appeal No. 1999-1583
Application No. 08/377,390
limitation, pointing out, reasonably, in our view, that at
column 7, lines 32-60, of Fuchs, it is disclosed that error
detection monitor process 20 runs on the same node as the
processes being monitored. Accordingly, a monitor process
being run on the same node as a monitored process is subject
to the same faults as the processes being monitored and cannot
be considered to be “independent,” as claimed [brief-page 3].
In response, first the examiner argues that the claim
language is not clear and that the examiner does not
understand the language, “a monitor process associated with
the function being performed across the plurality of service
processes which...run independently of the monitor process”
[answer-page 4]. Initially, we point out that the language
quoted by the examiner omits the language, “service processes”
between “which” and “run” which appears to be the cause of the
examiner’s problems with regard to 35 U.S.C. 112. In any
event, we point out that if the examiner could not understand
the claim, the proper rejection would be under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, which the examiner applied, and not under 35
U.S.C. 102 or 103. Prior art cannot be applied against a
claim that is not understood since such an application of
8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007