Appeal No. 2002-1812
Application 08/861,181
teaching that updating file 78A occurs "in response to successful
receipt of the messages by the receiver program"; at best, it is
indirectly implied that some transport protocol must have
verified the data sent from application 56A to application 56D.
Third, there is no express teaching of "transmitting ... a
positive confirmation of [successful] receipt"; at best, the
reply indicating that 56D has completed its work indirectly
implies that the message was somehow received successfully.
Fourth, updating of files 78A and 78B is not "committing the
first unit of work" because no commit has been requested at this
point and because claim 1 requires that the first unit of work
corresponds to the messages by the sender program, not files on a
protected resource. These differences are not addressed or
explained away in the rejection. We agree with appellants'
argument (Br5) that Britton does not disclose confirmation of
performance of a first commit operation being required before
performing a second commit operation. Nevertheless, we look at
Jefferson to see whether it cures the deficiencies of Britton.
Jefferson discloses rolling back the processing of messages
in a queue if the virtual receive time is less than the
receiver's virtual time (p. 414). However, we agree with
appellants that there is no disclosure in Jefferson of the
specific commit or backout processing sequence for logically
linked units of work including send and receive operations of a
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007