Appeal No. 2004-1082
Application No. 09/106,166
notifications. But, as argued by appellants, the instant
invention is an extension of the framework taught by Strom,
extending the teaching of Strom to include a mechanism for
dynamically switching between an optimistic notification mode and
a pessimistic notification mode. It is noted by appellants, and
appears to be factual, that the mechanism by which dynamic
switching between the optimistic notification mode and the
pessimistic notification mode is achieved “are adaptive view
objects and adaptive view proxy objects, neither of which are
[sic, is] disclosed in Strom” (reply brief-page 6).
As above, the critical claimed step is “dynamically
switching between an optimistic notification mode and a
pessimistic notification mode.” The examiner contends that this
is taught by Strom at page 4, the left column, paragraphs 2-5.
That cited portion of Strom recites that a “view object is a
user-defined object that can be dynamically attached to one or
more model objects.”
While the attachment may be “dynamic,” this does not,
necessarily, mean that the switching between modes is “dynamic.”
In fact, as pointed out by appellants, the bottom of the left-
hand column at page 2 of Strom recites that “writers can choose
whether views see updates to model objects as they occur
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007