Appeal No. 2004-1082
Application No. 09/106,166
standpoint of the entity receiving the notification, in the sense
that the entity receiving the notification may not be the same as
the entity initiating the action corresponding to the
notification.
More particularly, appellants argue, at page 2 of the reply
brief, that Alonso discloses, at column 9, lines 32-35, that a
confirmation refers to “modifications of the shared data GD since
the last updating of the replicated data unit,” while the present
invention, with regard to a “notification,” informs the
application of a local change to state information and does not
relate to modifications of shared data. Referring to page 9,
lines 13-15, of the instant specification, i.e., “optimistic view
objects 113 receive notifications as soon as the data has changed
locally; pessimistic view objects 110 receive notifications only
when the distributed sites have agreed there are no conflicts
among them in the changes to the data,” appellants argue that, in
the instant invention, it is only after the application
determines how to respond to the notification that the shared
data may be modified.
Thus, appellants contend that the meaning given to the
claimed term “notification,” as defined in the instant
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007