Appeal No. 1999-1583
Application No. 08/377,390
found. The examiner responds, at page 7 of the answer, that
Fuchs
monitors “...each monitored application
process to determine its condition by
periodically sending a message to the process
using the inter process communication...and
evaluating the return value to determine
weather[sic]that process is still active.”,
(col. 7, lines 45 et seq.).
However, we still do not understand what, exactly, in
Fuchs, the examiner considers to be the claimed “export
processes.” As such, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation and we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Since Freund does not provide for the deficiencies of
Fuchs, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. 103.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, and we have not
sustained the prior art rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
102(e) and 103.
11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007