Appeal No. 2001-2326
Application No. 08/752,909
and described therein, a decrease in recent processing rate for a job leads to an
increasing value of priority.
However, we are persuaded by appellants that Mueller’s teachings with respect
to periodically recalculating priority fail to disclose or suggest the specific claim
limitations at issue. As disclosed by Mueller (e.g., col. 6, ll. 26-45; Fig. 3), “M” is simply
the highest value of priority, serving as a basis from which relative priorities of
processes may be measured at each processing interval. We find no disclosure or
suggestion of adding a number to accumulated earnings for each job, as required by
instant claim 1.
The remaining independent claims (18 and 28) contain limitations similar to
those of claim 1 for which we consider Mueller to be lacking. Further, since the
remaining rejections applied against the dependent claims do not remedy the basic
deficiency of the Mueller reference, we do not sustain any of the section 103 rejections.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007