Appeal No. 2002-2316
Application No. 09/408,443
We have studied the references applied against instant claim 16, with particular
emphasis on the sections of Tarr pointed out by the examiner where the alleged
teachings are deemed to reside. We agree with appellants that no proper combination
of the references would have suggested the claimed subject matter.
Tarr discloses several embodiments (e.g., Figs. 1-4) directed to local monitoring
of diagnostic, maintenance, or billing information that may be sent to a remote
computer. Information may be transmitted at predetermined times that are under local
control (e.g., col. 5, ll. 14-22). A remote computer may also poll a local system for the
required information, as when a local system has not transmitted its information at the
predesignated time (e.g., col. 10, ll. 19-38).
Claim 16 requires, however, that the first, remote computer receives a message
including information stored from sensors of a network device and determines if
information obtained from the sensors is to be transmitted to the second, local
computer. If indicated, a communication containing information from the local sensors
is transmitted from the remote computer to the local computer. We find no suggestion
in the references before us for the processing and transfer of information as required by
the claim. We thus do not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
Claim 26, the only other independent claim on appeal, is in the form of a means
plus function version of claim 16. Although Frantz is added to the combination of
Aikens and Tarr in the rejection of claim 26, the Frantz reference is apparently relied
upon for its teachings relating to electronic or Internet mail messages. Because Frantz
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007