Appeal No. 1995-4702
Application 08/071,049
analysis program to monitor various operations associated with
job programs does not necessarily place the artisan in
possession of the correspondence features of the claimed
invention on appeal. These relationships between the monitor
control program, the test analysis program and the job
programs in Keefe are not the type of specified
"correspondence" of the claims on appeal.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 15 and 30 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Keefe.
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 15 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over IBM alone, we also
reverse this rejection generally for analogous reasons set
forth with respect to our reversal of these claims based upon
the teachings of Keefe. Again, we do not find in IBM an
extension portion of memory corresponding to a server portion
of memory and an extension routine structurally corresponding
to each server routine as required by claims 15 and 30 on
appeal. The first two paragraphs at page 5573 of IBM appear
to justify appellants' view at page 16 of the principal brief
on appeal that IBM records monitoring information of CPU-wide
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007