Appeal No. 2002-1812
Application 08/861,181
determination of whether a message was successfully received.
That is, while Britton sends messages in the protected
conversation, the unit of work is not based on the receipt of the
messages, as claimed. Britton does not take the specific actions
of "committing" a unit of work and "transmitting ... a positive
confirmation of receipt" "in response to successful receipt of
the messages" or "rolling back" a unit of work and "transmitting
... a negative confirmation of receipt" "in response to
unsuccessful receipt of the messages." The rejection does not
account for these differences between the subject matter of
claim 1 and Britton, which makes it hard to understand how the
examiner intends to read Britton onto claim 1. The examiner's
reliance on only column 15, line 30 to column 16, line 34 also
makes it difficult to understand the rejection since this portion
of Britton does not get to the commit procedure. Nevertheless,
we try to make the rejection work by looking at Britton and how
the examiner maps the claim limitations to Britton.
When application 56A initiates a protected conversation with
application 56D in system 50D, a logical unit of work identifier
(LUWID) and unique conversation identifier is sent along with a
conversation initiate request to the remote system 50D. The
LUWID and unique conversation identifier are registered both in
the syncpoint manager 60A and syncpoint manager 64D by protected
conversation adapters 64A and 64D (step 532 in Fig. 5A) (col. 15,
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007