Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 48
We turn next to the rejection of claims 19 and 55 (Group 5).
Appellant asserts that these claims require that the time of
reporting can be adjusted automatically. The examiner's position
(answer, page 5) is that the limitations of claims 19 and 55
would have been obvious to an artisan from the disclosure of
Brice (abstract) that “Brice et al teaches automatically
distributing the executable, see abstract, for the benefit of
load efficiently among available processing resources.”
Appellant asserts (brief, page 21) that the abstract of Brice
refers only to spreading the processing load over available
resources, and that Brice says nothing about varying the
reporting rate, nor of doing so dynamically and automatically.
We agree. From our review of Brice, and in particular, the
portions of Brice relied upon by the examiner, we find that the
distribution of executable load efficiently among available
processing resources, is not a teaching or suggestion of
automatically dynamically adjusting the reporting time. Because
there is no evidence of record to support the obviousness of
dynamically and automatically adjusting the reporting time, the
rejection of claims 19 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007