Appeal 2007-1595
Application 09/751,858
1 ANALYSIS
2 As illustrated above, the claimed subject matter is directed toward automated
3 date gap analysis. Such analysis, as applied toward measurement of how long
4 machines operate and take to repair, is notoriously old and well known,
5 particularly in the field of quality measurement, and Baum is only one example of
6 many references that speak to its embodiment in portraying the gaps in times
7 between failure and times to repair. Any search of the terms of art “mean time
8 between failure” and “mean time to repair” in the pertinent databases will return
9 voluminous references. With such a rich vein of prior art, we find it curious that
10 neither reference applied by the Examiner portrayed such an analysis. Thus, we
11 make a new ground of rejection relying on a reference in an art relevant to date gap
12 analysis.
13 Baum is an exemplary reference within the art of measuring machine operation
14 by date gap analysis, and it has the added virtue that it relates the date gap analysis
15 of machines to its effect on labor (FF11), which, to any manufacturer employing
16 substantial amounts of labor, would immediately suggest a similar analysis toward
17 the analogous statistics in labor due to accidents.
18 Jensen, applied by the Examiner, is directed toward automated analysis of
19 labor accidents, and describes the data that ought to be collected for such analysis,
20 and examples of interactive user interfaces and the types of analysis that would be
21 needed for analyzing labor accidents.
22 Dix is directed toward the making charts, such as the automated charts of
23 Jensen, interactive to facilitate further analysis, and describes the process of
24 automating user selected additional analysis colloquially known as drilling down.
25 As to applying these references to the specific claim limitations, independent
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013