Appeal No. 2002-1812
Application 08/861,181
lines 18-20, 25-29, & 47-50). Protected work done by application
56D will be associated with the logical unit of work originally
started by application 56A (Step 532) (col. 15, lines 32-35;
col. 23, lines 15-26). Application 56A sends a request to
application 56D, which eventually causes application 56D to
update file 78D, and application 56D sends a reply to application
56A that it completed its work (step 533; col. 16, lines 18-28).
Application 56A then issues update requests for files 78A and 78B
(step 533A). No commit processing has been done at this stage .
Now application 56A issues a commit 58A (step 534). After this
point, a two-phase commit process is carried out.
The examiner considers the claimed "messages" to correspond
to the "update message from 56A to 56D in commit phase" (EA4;
EA8), the claimed "committing said second unit of work" "in
response to successful receipt of the messages" to correspond to
"56D updates file 78D" (EA4; EA8), the claimed "transmitting ...
a positive confirmation of receipt" to correspond to "reply from
56D to 56A indicating it completed the work/request" (EA4-5;
EA8), and the claimed "committing the first unit of work" "in
response to the positive confirmation" to correspond to "56A
commits/updates 78A, 78B" (EA5; EA8). However, there are several
problems with this interpretation. First, updating the file 78D
is not "committing said second unit of work" because no commit
has been requested at this point. Second, there is no express
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007