Appeal No. 2004-1082
Application No. 09/106,166
specification, is different from the “confirmation” of Alonso and
Alonso cannot anticipate the instant claimed invention.
Moreover, contend appellants, even if, arguendo, Alonso’s
“confirmation” might be considered to be a “notification,” Alonso
still does not disclose the claimed step of “dynamically
switching between an optimistic notification mode and a
pessimistic notification mode.” This is so because, while Alonso
does disclose the switching between optimistic and pessimistic
operating modes, in general, Alonso does not disclose the step of
dynamically switching between an optimistic notification mode and
a pessimistic notification mode.
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including the
arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we find that the
examiner has presented a prima facie case of anticipation with
regard to independent claim 1, which has not been successfully
overcome by appellants.
First, with regard to the “dynamically switching” aspect of
the claimed subject matter, we think it is clear, from column 10,
lines 43-47, of Alonso, that the reference teaches a dynamic
switch between optimistic and pessimistic operating modes. The
issue is whether Alonso discloses the claimed optimistic and
pessimistic “notification” modes.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007