Appeal No. 1997-0240
Application No. 08/163,761
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 15,
the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes to modify the disclosure of the admitted prior art
which describes a client server communication system but which
lacks any teaching of redirecting the functions of a detected
abnormally operating or overloaded client machine to another
client machine. To address this deficiency, the Examiner
turns to Parad which includes a general teaching of a resource
management system in which scheduled events are adjusted in
response to changes in status and resource requirements. In
the Examiner’s line of reasoning (Answer, page 5), the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to apply the dynamic
rescheduling scheme of Parad to the admitted prior art to
avoid problems resulting from the failure to consider the
dependent relationships of system conditions and constraints.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007