Appeal 2007-1476
Application 10/308,866
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 9 through 35, 37, and 40 through 48. In
addition we will affirm, pro forma, the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claim 18.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4 and 11) that Dias' executing a
recovery program on a node other than where a failure has occurred satisfies
the step of identifying an active second member to replace the first in
response to an event (such as the failure of a member), as recited in claims 1
and 32. The Examiner further asserts (Answer 8) that the same execution of
a recovery program satisfies the step of automatically causing the service to
be provided by another member of the composite resource, as recited in
claim 18.
Appellants contend (Br. 5) that Dias' calling a recovery program to
execute commands needed to recover a failed subsystem differs from the
claimed step of identifying an active second member to replace the first
member in response to an event such as a failure. Similarly, Appellants
contend (Br. 9) that Dias' calling a recovery program differs from the
claimed step of automatically causing the service to be provided by another
member of the composite resource. Accordingly, Appellants contend (Br. 6,
8, and 9) that Dias fails to anticipate independent claims 1, 18, and 32.
Appellants further contend (Br. 7, 8, 10, and 11) that Dias, therefore, fails to
anticipate dependent claims 2 through 4, 6, 9 through 17, 19 through 31, 33
through 35, 37, and 40 through 48. Thus, the issues are whether in the event
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013