Appeal No. 2002-0384 Application No. 09/111,849 event, the first period corresponding to the time frame." Appellants further argue that Wright fails to disclose the above- noted limitations. In particular, appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 3) that Wright's detection of occurrences or logins is irrespective of any time period. Accordingly, appellants conclude (Brief, page 8) that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Although we agree with appellants that Wright fails to disclose the claimed time period, we agree with the examiner that the claims would have been obvious in view of Bell and Wright. Bell teaches (column 1, lines 54-55) that in U.S. Patent No. 4,080,589, "the occurrence of an error triggers a timer and begins a counting interval." Thus, Bell discloses a first period commences in response to occurrence of a first event. Bell further teaches (column 1, lines 55-58), "Subsequent errors occurring during the interval are counted until a predetermined threshold is reached or the timing interval expires." Thus, the event record (or count) is updated in response to each event that occurs within the first period. Further, Bell explains (column 1, lines 58-60) that an alarm is sounded if the threshold is reached before the time period expires. In other words, Bell discloses that a determination is made based on the event records 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007