Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
Because we find all the limitations taught by Dieter,
the anticipation rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Claim 23
Claim 23 contains the same "retaining" step as claim 1,
which we found is not taught by Dieter. Therefore, the
anticipation rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Appellant also argues that "the Examiner has failed to
identify in Dieter. [sic] and Dieter does not disclose, the
execution speed information, transfer speed information, and
synchronicity analysis or combination thereof, as required
by Claim 23" (Br16-17). The Examiner finds the limitation
taught by the following statement in Dieter (page 200, right
col., last para.): "monitoring software counts and stores
summaries about individual events in the local database:
number of messages sent and received, elapsed and blocked
times, idle time, procedure running times. etc."
We do not find that the information referred to by the
Examiner is stored in a field of what we find to be the
status table. Nor does the information referred to by the
Examiner appear to be the same as what is claimed.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007