Appeal No. 2006-1109 Page 3
Application No. 09/843,882
Appendix" of the answer. The examiner should ensure that the explanation of the
grounds of rejection are included in the "Grounds of Rejection" section of his answer.
That said, "[r]ather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants
in toto, we focus on a point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Sienel, No.
2005-2429, 2006 WL 1665423, at *1 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2006). Admitting that
"Tachikawa does not expressly disclose: (c) calculating a change in a rate of said
moving in response to said monitored performance of the at least one executing
application; and (d) modifying said rate of said moving in accordance with said
calculated change," (Examiner's Answer at 10), the examiner asserts, "Sakaki explains
that the calculated rate of change of the queuing time is considered ‘path resource
information’ (see, for example, column 8, lines 15-23), and that the calculated rate of
change of the contentions is considered ‘old VOL resource information’ (see, for
example, column 8, lines 24-31)." (Id. at 5.) He adds, "[T]he queuing time and the
contentions relate to the performance of at least one application. Sakaki expressly
discloses, 'Based on the order of the priority of sequence of data migration and the
various resource information, a judgment is performed to determine whether migration
speed should be changed (Step 47)' (column 8, lines 32-35, emphasis added)." (Id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007