Appeal No. 2002-1282
Application No. 08/778,459
The examiner counters that Fulton’s detection “would include
closing of connection since he teaches watchd daemon that detects
a dead or hung application, thus would detect a closing of the
connection related to a dead or hung application” (answer-page
6).
We disagree. First, Fulton is not clear that there is any
“connection” between the application and the watchd monitor, and
the examiner has not identified any specific connection in
Fulton, but, to the extent there is some tenuous “connection,” as
that term is broadly interpreted, there is no evidence that
detecting a dead or hung application is tantamount to detecting a
“closing” of that “connection” between the application and the
watchd monitor. There is absolutely no hint in Fulton that
performing a failure recovery service is based, in any way, on
detection of a closed connection between a registered component
and a system monitor.
Moreover, the examiner has not indicated what is being
considered as the “connection” in Fulton, nor has the examiner
indicated what is considered to be a “closing” of that
connection.
As such, we find no prima facie case of obviousness
established by the examiner.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007