Appeal No. 2002-0384
Application No. 09/111,849
event, the first period corresponding to the time frame."
Appellants further argue that Wright fails to disclose the above-
noted limitations. In particular, appellants argue (Reply Brief,
page 3) that Wright's detection of occurrences or logins is
irrespective of any time period. Accordingly, appellants
conclude (Brief, page 8) that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although we agree
with appellants that Wright fails to disclose the claimed time
period, we agree with the examiner that the claims would have
been obvious in view of Bell and Wright.
Bell teaches (column 1, lines 54-55) that in U.S. Patent
No. 4,080,589, "the occurrence of an error triggers a timer and
begins a counting interval." Thus, Bell discloses a first period
commences in response to occurrence of a first event. Bell
further teaches (column 1, lines 55-58), "Subsequent errors
occurring during the interval are counted until a predetermined
threshold is reached or the timing interval expires." Thus, the
event record (or count) is updated in response to each event that
occurs within the first period. Further, Bell explains (column
1, lines 58-60) that an alarm is sounded if the threshold is
reached before the time period expires. In other words, Bell
discloses that a determination is made based on the event records
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007