Appeal No. 2001-2127
Application No. 08/660,730
appellants contend distinguishes over the combination of applied
references. If appellants are referring to "storing the
message . . . on the local platform when the client and
server are located on the local platform and the server is
unavailable . . .” (principal brief, sentence bridging
pages 4-5), Tantry would seem to teach this. Column 14, lines
65-67, of Tantry states that "[i]f no Application Server of the
type requested is available, the Communication Manager buffers
the request until one is available." This would seem to imply
that Tantry buffers, or queues, the message when a server is
unavailable, whether or not the server is local or remote, and
does not buffer, or queue, a message when a server is available.
That being the case, Tantry does store a message on the local
platform when the client and server are located on the local
platform and the server is unavailable, as claimed. It is true
that Tantry also implies that a message is stored on the local
platform when the client and server are not located together on
the local platform, but that is not precluded by the language of
the claim.
However, independent claims 1 and 11 also require the
transferring of the message to the server via the RPC call on the
transport network when the client and server are not located on
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007