Appeal No. 1997-0240
Application No. 08/163,761
Upon careful review of the applied prior art in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
stated position that the proposed combination of the admitted
prior art and Parad does not make obvious the claimed subject
matter. In our view, the Examiner has combined the general
teachings of a resource management system in Parad and a
client server communication system in the admitted prior art
in some vague manner without specifically describing how the
teachings would be combined. This does not persuade us that
one of ordinary skill in the art having the references before
her or him, and using her or his own knowledge of the art,
would have been put in possession of the claimed subject
matter.
For example, the Examiner relies on a passage at column
9, lines 19-34 of Parad for disclosing the feature of
redirecting originally scheduled functions of an abnormally
operating or overloaded client machine to another client
machine. However, this cited portion of Parad describes only
in general terms the provision of alternative action choices
to an operator according to an action list prioritized by
rules according to a merit criteria. The Examiner has not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007