Appeal 2007-1595
Application 09/751,858
1 according to the time between the event and the previous event relative to the
2 average time between those events.
3 The posting referred to by the Examiner excludes all events but the most recent
4 in its message. The Examiner has not contended that excluding all events but the
5 most recent event and its predecessor is sufficient to read on the claimed subject
6 matter, and we find that the claimed subject matter, being aimed at facilitating
7 statistical analysis of plural events, would not embrace such an exclusion among
8 plural such events. Therefore posting only the gap between the two most recent
9 events, as done by Pfeiffer, does not meet the claimed subject matter.
10 The Examiner goes on to contend that computer automation is obvious, but is
11 unable to show a manual embodiment of the claimed subject matter against which
12 to apply this argument. Therefore, we must conclude that the Examiner erred in
13 finding the obviousness of incorporating date gap analysis to the combined
14 teachings of Jensen and Pfeiffer.
15 The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s official notice of the notoriety of
16 adjusting workloads according to safety concerns (FF10) is not relevant to making
17 workload adjustments to data (Reply Br. 3). We agree that these two actions are
18 different and that the Examiner has not provided any showing of how such
19 notoriety would suggest making the data adjustments of the claimed subject matter.
20 Therefore, we must conclude that the Examiner erred in finding the obviousness of
21 incorporating workload adjustments to the combined teachings of Jensen and
22 Pfeiffer.
23
24 NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
25 We make the following evidence of record:
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013