Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 using an algorithm to determine the product ratings for a user, we find that it
2 would have been obvious to statistically characterize the responsiveness of a
3 service provider. Accordingly, we hold that the teachings and suggestions of
4 Gershman and Brockman would have suggested the limitations of claims 32
5 and 38. The rejection of claims 32 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
6 sustained.
7 We turn next to claims 33 and 39. We sustain the rejection of these
8 claims for the same reasons as we sustained the rejection of claims 11 and
9 23, and add that in view of the description in Gershman of setting security
10 permissions, we find that an artisan would have been motivated to include
11 data regarding the vulnerability of the service provider. Accordingly, we
12 hold that the combined teachings of Gershman and Brockman would have
13 suggested the language of claims 32 and 38. The rejection of claims 33 and
14 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
15 We turn next to claims 34 and 40. We sustain the rejection of claims
16 34 and 40 because the description of Gershman of using algorithms to
17 analyze product ratings would have suggested statistically characterizing the
18 security data as we found for claims 33 and 39. Accordingly, we hold that
19 the combined teachings and suggestions of Gershman and Brockman would
20 have suggested the language of claims 34 and 40. The rejection of claims 34
21 and 40 is sustained.
22 We turn next to claims 35 and 41. The claims recite that the
23 availability data includes susceptibility to failure. From the description (fact
24 28) of Thin Client resulting in reduced downtime, we find that reduced
25 downtime provides data regarding susceptibility of the service provider to
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013