Ex Parte HELER - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-1581                                                        
          Application 09/425,748                                                      

          The disclosed invention pertains to a method and                            
          apparatus for identifying a status of a system by identifying a             
          trend based on queue waiting periods.                                       
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   A method of identifying a status of a system,                     
          comprising:                                                                 
                    computing a plurality of first queue waiting periods,             
          each related to an amount of time at least one request waits for            
          service;                                                                    
                    identifying a trend responsive to at least two of the             
          plurality of first queue waiting periods; and                               
                    providing the status responsive to the trend identified           
          and at least one of the plurality of first queue waiting periods            
          computed.                                                                   
          The examiner relies on the following reference:                             
          Shtivelman                    6,157,655          Dec. 05, 2000              
          (filed Dec. 11, 1998)                                                       
          Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                      
          being anticipated by the disclosure of Shtivelman.                          
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                        
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                          
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence             

                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007