Appeal No. 2002-0384
Application No. 09/111,849
(or count) whether the number of events occurred within the time
frame. Accordingly, Bell alone appears to satisfy all of the
limitations of representative claim 1, with Wright merely being
cumulative. Therefore, we will sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 1 and the claims grouped therewith, claims 10 and 15.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, appellants assert (Brief, pages 8-
9) that since neither Bell nor Wright disclosed the steps of
claim 1 regarding a first event and a first time period, the
combination could not disclose the same steps with regard to a
second event. However, as we found that Bell does disclose the
limitations of claim 1 with regard to a first event, appellants'
argument is not persuasive. Therefore, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3.
As to claims 6 and 7, appellants contend (Brief, page 9)
that neither Bell nor Wright discloses storing in the first event
record a first count value used to count the events and
determining if the count value has a predetermined relationship
to a threshold value. However, as indicated supra, Bell teaches
counting the events and determining whether the count value has
reached a threshold value. Consequently, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 7.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007