Appeal No. 2004-0354
Application No. 09/240,118
providing a graph or table of the performance data collected by
the monitoring agent, and there is no teaching or suggestion that
the graphs and tables are even integrated into a display of a
reference (principal brief-page 8).
Appellants further contend that it would not have been
obvious to combine the references to Barrick and Luzzi because
Barrick is directed to a browser agent for measuring the download
time of test pages associated with hyperlinks after the hyperlink
is selected by a user, while Luzzi is directed to an agent for
measuring the performance of “server applications” in response to
service requests. Moreover, appellants point out, both
references may be directed to obtaining performance data but the
performance data obtained is very different, Barrick measuring
connection performance and Luzzi measuring application
performance (principal brief-page 9). Therefore, conclude
appellants, there would have been no motivation for the
combination suggested by the examiner.
We agree with appellants for the reasons set forth in the
principal and reply briefs.
All of the independent claims require integrating
performance data into a graphical display of the references
(hyperlinks) prior to selection of one of the references. While
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007