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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007