Appeal No. 2004-0935 Application No. 09/189,559 (Abstract; column 1, lines 59 through 62). Stupek performs several functions in connection with the upgrade (e.g., determining the availability and the necessity of the upgrade) (column 3, lines 53 through 58), but determining conflict information between the two resources is not one such function. Burns discloses a search for conflicts in the order of read and write commands in a delta file (i.e., modifications between two versions of the same file) (Figure 6; column 3, lines 16 through 21; column 8, lines 40 through 61). Burns solves the conflict by rearranging the order of the read and write commands (Figure 6; column 8, line 62 through column 9, line 8). The conflict information is not stored in Burns. Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5 through 8, 14 through 18, 22 through 25, 31 through 43, 45 through 52 and 58 through 65 is reversed because neither Stupek nor Burns teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to store conflict information in a database, and then to use the stored conflict information to resolve the software conflict. The obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 4, 9 through 13, 19 through 21, 26 through 30, 44 and 53 through 57 are reversed because the teachings of Shipley, Gross and Choye fail 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007