Appeal No. 96-1233
Application 08/259,368
of measuring idle time in a processor. The examiner observes
that it would have been obvious to use the Blasciak
measurement system to measure idle time as suggested by
Ellsworth and to limit the measurement by priority [answer,
pages 9-10]. Appellants point to several recitations of
independent claim 26 which they argue are not suggested by the
proposed combination of Blasciak and Ellsworth. We again find
ourselves in agreement with appellants.
The examiner simply concludes that the recitations of
claim 26 would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
Blasciak and Ellsworth, but we are unable to find any
teachings in the applied prior art that would have suggested
summarizing processor idle time and processor resource
utilization in the manner specifically recited in claim 26.
The evidence of record in this case simply does not support
the findings of the examiner. Therefore, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since claims 27-30 depend from claim 26, we also do not
sustain the rejection of these claims.
In summary, the rejection of claims 17-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 has been sustained with respect to claims 17, 18
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007