Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
relates to the teachings of Daniel, the categorization would be a determination of a
routing type and routing the group of events in the category to an action would have
been routing based on the type. The language of independent claim 1 does not require
that each event be processed individually and not as a group before the next event is
processed. Therefore, the processing of the group of events within the category would
meet the language of independent claim 1. We find no language in the claim to
support appellants' argument related to Figure 11 of the specification. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Therefore, we find that appellants have not adequately
rebutted the examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 12, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36, 37, 38,
and 42 which appellants have not specifically addressed in the arguments.
With respect to the dependent claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, 43,
and 44, appellants argue that Daniel and Gough do not disclose geometric, focus or
broadcast routing types. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants that neither
reference specifically enumerates the same labels, but the examiner relies on the
teaching in Gough at col. 11, line 12 et seq. (see final rejection at page 3) that the
system is open in nature and that new types or labels for triggering events can be
added at any time and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007