Appeal 2007-0928
Application 09/943,964
Further, the Sato reference does not make up for the deficiencies of
Ahmed in relation to the requirements of appealed claims 9-12. While Sato
discloses the monitoring of the operation of a first software stage component
105 by detecting whether an “alive” message arrives at a second stage
software component 112 within a predetermined time, there is no
determination as to the presence of such “alive” message at the input of the
second stage but not the output.
We next consider the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13,
16, 18, and 21 based on the combination of Ullman and Sato. As discussed
by the Examiner (Answer 11), Ullman discloses the monitoring of various
cascaded software stage components in a distributed data processing system.
We find in Ullman a disclosure (e.g. Figure 9F, page 14, para. [0184]) of a
ping and reply monitoring feature similar to that in the previously discussed
Ahmed reference. In our view, since independent claim 13 sets forth
alternative language similar to that of independent claim 1, the ping and
reply disclosure of Ullman would satisfy the claimed requirement of
detecting whether a data message or its derivative flows “entirely” through a
software stage component for the identical reason as discussed above with
regard to Ahmed in relation to claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments in response (Br. 32-33; Reply Br. 7-8) focus on
the alleged deficiencies of Sato in disclosing the claimed fault detection
feature in which a determination is made as to whether a data message flows
“entirely” through a software stage component. We do not find this
persuasive since, as discussed above, Ullman, as with Ahmed in relation to
claim 1, provides a disclosure of detecting whether a data message or its
derivative flows “entirely” through a software stage component.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013