Appeal No. 2002-0384
Application No. 09/111,849
OPINION
As a preliminary matter we note that appellants indicate on
pages 3-4 of the Brief that the claims are to be treated in the
following three groups and presents separate arguments
accordingly: I) 1 through 3, 6, 7, 10, and 15, II) 8, 9, 13, 14,
18, and 19, and III) 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 17. We also note that
appellants present separate arguments for claims 2 and 3 and for
claims 6 and 7. Accordingly, we will treat the claims as falling
into five groups, I) claims 1, 10, and 15, II) claims 2 and 3,
III) claims 6 and 7, IV) claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19, and
V) 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 17, with claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 4 as
representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6
through 10, 13 through 15, 18, and 19 and reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 17.
Regarding representative claim 1, appellants contend (Brief,
page 7) that Bell fails to teach "updating the first event record
in response to each event that occurs within a first period, the
first period commencing in response to occurrence of the first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007