Appeal No. 2002-0384
Application No. 09/111,849
Appellants state (Brief, pages 11-12) that representative
claim 8 recites using a threshold value with a predetermined
relationship for the count value to determine that a certain
number of events have occurred. Appellants assert that neither
Bell nor Wright discloses this limitation. However, as explained
supra, Bell discloses using the count value as compared with the
threshold value to determine whether a certain number (the
threshold value) of events has occurred. Therefore, we will
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8, and the claims
grouped therewith, claims 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 17 all recite removing the
first event record from the database in response to an expiration
value that indicates that the first period has expired. Bell is
silent as to removing records from the database, and it would be
mere speculation on our part to assume that Bell removes records
when the time period has ended. Wright does not deal with time
periods and, therefore, does not cure the deficiency of Bell.
Recognizing the shortcomings of the two references, the examiner
(Answer, page 13) adds Freund to the combination. In particular,
the examiner asserts that Freund teaches removing the event
record in response to the time period ending "as a means for
determining what events should be logged, including how long are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007