Appeal No. 2003-1581
Application 09/425,748
historical waiting period were instead four minutes, three
minutes and two minutes in that order, Shtivelman would still
indicate a waiting period of three minutes (the average).
Shtivelman does not distinguish the fact that in the first
scenario the waiting period is getting worse while in the second
scenario the waiting period is getting better. Appellant’s
claimed invention, on the other hand, identifies a trend so that
it recognizes that the status in the two scenarios is not the
same because the trends are different. The fact that Shtivelman
recognizes patterns such as times of heavy traffic does not meet
the claimed invention because Shtivelman does not use these
patterns in providing the status of the system responsive to
these patterns. We do not agree with the examiner’s attempt to
read the identifying of a trend, as recited in the claimed
invention, as being met by the different patterns disclosed by
Shtivelman. We also do not agree with the examiner’s position
that Shtivelman must inherently identify a trend in the
performance of the system described therein. As noted above, it
appears to us that Shtivelman does nothing more than provide
expected waiting times to callers based upon the historical
average of previous waiting times. There is no requirement or
disclosure that these waiting times take into account trends
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007