Appeal No. 2006-0796 Page 9
Application No. 09/607,751
by estimating computing resources required to carry out the
process execution associated with the task.
In addition, the fact that resource agent 104 of Semret
conducts bidding and allocates resources does not mean that the
resource agent 104 simulates the process execution by estimating
computing resources required to carry out the task.
Nor are we persuaded by the examiner’s assertion (answer,
page 8) that the examples of figures 15(j), 15(k) and 15(l) of
Semret teach computing resources to carry out process execution.
From our review of figures 15(j), 15(k) and 15(l) we find that
these figures are directed to bidding strategies for buyers, and
not to simulating process execution by estimating resources
necessary to carry out the process execution associated with the
task, as required by claim 1.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. As
independent claims 14 and 29 contain the same or similar
language, the rejection of claim 14 and 29 is reversed. As the
remaining claims depend from claims 1, 14 or 29, the rejection of
claims 2-13, 15-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007