Appeal No. 2002-1846
Application 09/146,199
36 which require logging of events including at least one of four enumerated types of events,
claims 17 and 33 require the collecting and storing of system test data comprising a log of events
including at least two of the four enumerated types of events. Claims 18 and 34 require the
collecting and storing of system test data comprising a log of events including at least three of
the four enumerated types of events. Claims 19 and 35 require the collecting and storing of
system test data comprising a log of events including all four enumerated types of events.
With respect to the Mindrum reference, the appellant takes issue with these findings of
the examiner: (1) that Mindrum discloses a terminal that transmits customer purchase data, e.g.,
price and product information, to the store controller; (2) that Mindrum discloses storing a
price change at terminal event; (3) that Mindrum discloses storing of system performance data,
and (4) that Mindrum discloses filtering of customer purchase data, In appellant’s supplemental
brief on page 3, it is stated:
I have reviewed the cited column and line numbers in the Mindrum et al.
patent, and I conclude that these four factual assertions are clearly false, and their
repeated assertion is unreasonable. I request that the examiner clarify the record,
by either: (1) explaining the basis for these assertions or (2) admitting on the
record that these assertions are erroneous.
The examiner’s position is not adequately articulated and appears internally inconsistent.
Note that each of claims 20 and 36 requires the collecting and storing of system test data. In that
regard, the examiner stated on page 5 of Paper No. 17, following the filing of appellants’ appeal
brief: “Mindrum et al. do not teach system test data.” If Mindrum do not teach system test
data as the examiner has so determined, then Mindrum would not teach any of the four different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007