Appeal No. 96-1233
Application 08/259,368
those two values. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to dependent claim 19, appellants argue
that Blasciak does not teach the polling means as claimed.
The examiner asserts that the polling means is implied in
Blasciak. We have considered the portion of Blasciak relied
on by the examiner, and we agree with appellants that there is
no disclosure therein of the polling means for polling
permanent and volatile storage status and generating
performance data based on the polling results. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by the
disclosure of Blasciak.
With respect to independent claim 22, appellants argue
that the examiner has failed to identify any teaching in
Blasciak of generating event signals and storing only selected
ones of the event signals [brief, pages 16-17]. These
arguments were previously considered with respect to other
claims and were determined not to be persuasive. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007