Ex Parte Manolov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2014

10837001 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte SVETOSLAV MANOLOV and IVO SIMEONOV
_____________

Appeal 2011-012963
Application 10/837,001
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012963
Application 10/837,001

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 20-25, 28-33, 37-40, 45-48, and 54.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that Newhook discloses
sending a commit command prior to reception of a ready command. We
find that Figure 7 of Newhook depicts that a prepare command is called and
that the transaction does not continue or commit until a return of a positive
vote is received. We find that this return of a positive vote is a ready
command. As clearly depicted in Figure 7, the transaction is not completed
or committed until this positive vote is received. Newhook further discloses
that the transaction is only committed when all resources signal that the
preparation is successful and they are ready to commit (para. [0004]).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 54 which all require sending a commit
command prior to reception of a ready command, and the rejection of the
remaining claims dependent thereon.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 20-
25, 28-33, 37-40, 45-48, and 54 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh