Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
With respect to dependent claims 9, 15, and 24, the examiner relies upon the
teachings of Barritz to teach the use of monitoring access (See answer at pages 7, 8
and 13.) At page 13 the examiner additionally maintains that it was well-known in the
computer art to track usage statistics for the purpose of billing, resource allocation,
maintanence scheduling, etc. Additionally, the examiner notes that the search engine
for database searching would have been an executable program as is taught by Barritz.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to have generated access statistics for at least
tracking and billing. Here, we find no express limitations in dependent claim 9 which
details what type of access or statistics are being maintained. Therefore, we find that
the base combination of Oku and Srinivasan would have suggested generating access
statistics in response to interaction between the client and server as detailed by the
examiner. Therefore, we find the teachings of Barritz to be cummulative of monitoring
which would take place in the base combination of Oku and Srinivasan. Appellant
argues that Barritz teaches only monitoring executable files and would be inoperable to
generate access statistics as recited in the claims. (See brief at page 12.) We
disagree with appellant. The examiner maintains that the searching of the databases
would have been an executable file to be tracked. (See answer at page 13.) We agree
with the examiner that the search engine(s) would have been executable files.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007