Appeal No. 2002-1797
Application 09/129,38
suggestion that a user who was in an arena of a zone on one
server is moved (migrated) to a different server in response to
environmental information as might happen in a fault tolerant
system. Nor do we find any discussion in Lipa about modifying
the system to prevent system-wide failure, as stated by the
examiner. Merely measuring the network performance and
determining which servers have the best performance is not fault
tolerance. Thus, we find that Lipa does not provide "a fault-
tolerance service for monitoring said application process," as
required by claim 21, or "monitoring said application process
with a fault-tolerance service," as required by claims 1 and 22.
Nevertheless, we do not rest our decision on these limitations.
Appellants argue that each of the independent claims 1, 13,
and 21-25 specify a method or system for reducing faults in an
application process by "dynamically adjusting the operation of a
fault-tolerance (or middleware) service associated with the
application process in response to the environmental
information," which is not taught by Lipa (Br3; RBr3-5). It is
argued that Lipa merely makes a static determination of whether
to grant access, and makes no attempt to reconfigure (i.e.,
"dynamically adjust") the user's computer of any applications or
services associated therewith (Br4).
The examiner provides three reasons why Lipa is "dynamically
adjusting" the fault tolerance system.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007