Appeal No. 2002-1812
Application 08/861,181
particular message transfer as recited in claim 1. It is noted
that backing out a message occurs in response to the virtual
receive time being less than the receiver's virtual time, not in
response to an unsuccessful receipt of the messages, as claimed.
Jefferson does not cure the deficiencies of Britton.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 1, 4, and 10 is reversed.
It is not clear why the examiner has rejected claim 10 over
Britton and Jefferson and not claim 8, since claim 8 is a "data
processing system" version of the "computer program product" in
claim 10. Nevertheless, we have considered Ranade and Ferree and
find that they do not cure the deficiencies in the combination of
Britton and Jefferson. Accordingly, we conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, and 9 is reversed.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007