Appeal No. 2001-2127
Application No. 08/660,730
to the local server because the local service requests of Brandle
are those frequently called . . ." (answer, page 5).
Additionally, the examiner applies Duault for teaching queue
management whereby a server interrogates a memory queue before
dequeueing a message, finding that since Brandle, as modified,
requires queue management and Duault provides such a mechanism,
it would have been obvious to apply the teaching of Duault to the
system of Brandle, as modified, "so as to permit better fault
tolerance" (answer, page 5).
Appellants argue that the combination of references does not
teach the instant claimed subject matter because Tantry describes
the Communication Manager "as always buffering requests when no
Application Server is available, regardless of whether the
Application Server is local or remote" (principal brief, page 4).
Appellants then proceed to list the "transferring . . .,"
"storing . . .," and "causing . . ." elements of claim 1, arguing
that "nothing in Tantry teaches or suggests" these limitations
(principal brief, page 4).
It is a little difficult to discern appellants' arguments.
Since appellants identify most of the claim language, it is
difficult to ascertain just what specific claim language
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007