Ex Parte Harif - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2006-0598                                     Page 2          
         Application No. 09/752,072                                               
                                    BACKGROUND                                    
              The appellant's invention relates to a system, method and           
         program for bidding for best solution process execution in a             
         heterogeneous network (specification, page 1).                           
              Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is                  
         reproduced as follows:                                                   
              1.  A system for bidding for a process execution over a             
              heterogeneous network, said system comprising a network             
              server adapted to receive a payload over the                        
              heterogeneous network from a network client, wherein                
              the payload comprises specifications for a process                  
              execution associated with a task, wherein the server is             
              further adapted to simulate the process execution by                
              estimating computing resources required to carry out                
              the process execution associated with the task, and                 
              provide a bid solicitation for the process execution                
              from a network host.                                                
              The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                
         examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                            
         Semret et a1. (Semret)  US 2003/0101124     May 29, 20032                
              Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being        
         anticipated by Semret.                                                   
              Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced           
         by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted              



              2This published application claims priority under 35 U.S.C.         
         § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/203,849, filed May 12,   
         2000.                                                                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007