Appeal No. 96-3144
Application 08/322,111
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-9, assuming arguendo that the examiner has
made a proper showing regarding the motivation to combine the teachings of Yamaji
Haynes and Halliday, we do not find all the claimed steps which are recited in the claim 1.
The Examiner has not shown, in any teaching, the step of:
generating through a plurality of successive calculations revised estimates
of time to completion based upon successively later incremental
measurements of the rate of execution, where the revised estimates of time
are responsive to the effects of changes in the composite multitask load of
the multitasking workstation
(See claim 1; similar language is also found in claims 6 and 9.) The Examiner has pointed
to Haynes at col. 11, lines 6-11, 24 and 43-44 to teach "successive calculations and
"notifying a user." (See brief at page 4, paragraph 1.) The examiner has not pointed to
any teaching in Yamaji, Haynes, or Halliday which clearly shows the successive
calculations of estimates as set forth in the above quoted claim language nor a convincing
line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to perform the successive calculations of estimates where the
estimates are "responsive to the effects of changes in the composite multitask load." We
are unable to find in the art relied upon by the Examiner, any teaching prior to appellant's
invention, that successive estimates could be used to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007