Appeal No. 96-3238
Application No. 08/137,590
Assuming for the sake of argument that the artisan would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Asip and
Takayama, we agree with appellants that the combined teachings
would not satisfy the claims, i.e., they would not result in a
remote management apparatus that identifies a failed terminal
device by determining that the period of time during which the
remote management apparatus has been continuously available to
receive a communication from the terminal device exceeds the
retry period of the terminal device. The rejection of claims 1-4
under § 103 as unpatentable over Asip in view of Takayama is
therefore reversed.
Bennett discloses a television usage reporting system in
which reporting devices 10 transmit usage data to a central
station 24 over telephone lines 26 whenever the amount of stored
data reaches a predetermined threshold (col. 3, lines 14-27). As
in the claimed system, plural reporting devices may be scheduled
to communicate with the central station during the same time
interval (col. 4, lines 47-53). If a reporting device fails to
establish communication during the assigned time interval, it
makes further attempts during later time intervals selected in
accordance with an algorithm (col. 5, lines 1-33). Retry
attempts are terminated when successful or when a predetermined
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007