Appeal No. 95-2004
Application 07/597,370
(b) using the processor of the central computer
to generate a forecast of (i) an event load
expected to occur during intervals of a forecast
time period, and (ii) a number of servers
required to service the expected event load
during each interval of the forecast time
period;
(c) using the processor of the central computer
to allocate the expected event load among the
plurality of management units according to a
predetermined number of servers expected to be
available at each management unit during each
interval of the forecast time period; and
(d)using the processor of the central computer
to reallocate the expected event load among the
plurality of management units during one or more
intervals of the forecast time period, the
reallocated event load being communicated from
the central computer to the management unit
workstation computers.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 13-15 as
being unpatentable over Fields and AT&T Names.
The appellants correctly point out that claim 13
specifies a plurality of management units which together
service an overall event load and each management unit
includes one or more groups of individual servers. The
examiner cited to Fields as disclosing a staff scheduling
system for managing a "multi-unit operation" (answer at 4,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007