Appeal No. 2001-2127
Application No. 08/660,730
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived (see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)).
With regard to independent claims 1 and 11, it is the
examiner’s position that Brandle substantially discloses the
claimed subject matter except for storing the message in a local
memory queue when the client and server are on the same platform
and the server is unavailable to respond to the RPC call and for
causing the server to interrogate the local memory queue when the
server is available and for transferring the message to the
server from the local memory.
The examiner turns to Tantry for a communication manager
that communicates a request from a client to a server wherein,
when the server is unavailable to respond to the request, the
request is queued until the server becomes available. The
examiner makes the combination of Brandle and Tantry because "it
would have been obvious to include a local memory queue into the
RPC facility of Brandle and store a massage [sic, message]/
service request in the local memory queue . . . when the local
server is unavailable to respond to the massage [sic, message]/
service request" and it would have been obvious "to apply queuing
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007