Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
that calling a program and reading any necessary variables into
the program “creates” a new program. The examiner also finds
that checking the semaphore bit in Hapner reads on determining
whether a predetermined triggering event has occurred [answer,
pages 10-13].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a means for creating a means for coordinating the
transaction with respect to a plurality of elements that are
involved in carrying out the transaction only if the triggering
event has occurred. Thus, the claim requires that the means for
coordinating the transaction does not exist, and it only gets
created when the predetermined triggering events occur. We do
not agree with the examiner’s fundamental assertion that the
memory management coordination in Hapner constitutes the creation
of a means for coordinating the transaction because it creates a
new program. The memory management coordinator of Hapner does
not become a new creation with each new request for access to the
memory. The memory management coordinator of Hapner is always
present. We agree with appellants that a coordinating means is
not created in Hapner only in response to predetermined
triggering events. We find that the examiner’s attempt to read
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007