Ex Parte WILLEMS et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1417                                                        
          Application 09/365,784                                                      

          The disclosed invention pertains to a method for                            
          identifying one or more processes and their resources.  A                   
          particular feature of the invention is a method for handling                
          a premature termination of one of the processes.                            
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.  A method for identifying one or more processes                     
          and  their resources, each process having a first identifier                
          unambiguously identifying the process and its resources,                    
          wherein each process and its resources are provided with a                  
          second identifier unambiguously identifying the process and                 
          its resources, and when premature termination of a first process            
          occurs, a second process is started to continue the functions of            
          the terminated first process, the second process retaining the              
          second identifier of the terminated first process as its second             
          identifier.                                                                 
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Harada et al. (Harada)        5,894,555          Apr. 13, 1999              
          Ikeda et al. (Ikeda)          6,119,145          Sep. 12, 2000              
          (filed Feb. 28, 1997)                                                       
          Nakahara et al. (Nakahara)    6,253,225          June 26, 2001              
          (filed Aug. 26, 1997)                                                       
          Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As                    
          evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Nakahara in view of             
          Ikeda and Harada.                                                           
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                       
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007