Appeal No. 2006-0509 3
Application No. 09/425,088
Knight et al. (Knight) 6,442,608 Aug. 27, 2002
(filed Jan. 14, 1999)
Ball et al. (Ball) 6,446,200 Sept. 3, 2002
(filed Mar. 25, 1999)
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Somers in view of Tunnicliffe.
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Somers in view of Tunnicliffe and Ball.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Somers in view of Tunnicliffe, Aronberg and Knight.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 17.
All of the claims on appeal require that the performance management module
modify an estimated capacity of the service provider based on a measured performance
of the service implementation programmed in the service provider computer system.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that the service level agreement
in Somers between an authority and a customer (column 10, line 66 through column 11,
line 48) “does not explicitly teach modifying an estimated capacity . . . of the service
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007