Appeal No. 2004-0008
Application No. 09/547,627
value for each inquiry” as set forth in each of these independent
claims as well as independent claim 44. This is plainly evident
at least from the abstract of Walker.
The examiner has properly set forth various portions of
Walker to urge that Walker essentially sets forth in his own
terms a “model” to the extent broadly recited in these affirmed
claims. The examiner has made reference to the teachings at
column 3, line 45 through column 4, line 8; the teachings at
column 5, line 24 through column 6, line 28 as well as the
showings in figures 5 through 8 which, in our view as well,
depict to the artisan a process relating to a model/modular
software since CPU 52 of figure 3 performs the noted value
calculations. To these teachings we add the following: The
showing in figure 2 and the general discussion thereof at column
4, lines 17 through 24 and 45 through 47 indicating that
control/call distribution “procedures” are taught. Column 6,
lines 29 through 42 teach of plural queues indicating
conditional transfers from one queue to another based upon
predetermined or modeled software. Additionally, the teachings
at column 6, line 62 through column 7, line 3 indicates that the
control software or processes taught in Walker may be embodied
in one or more media disks.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007