Appeal 2006-2085
Application 09/810,629
1 failure. Accordingly, we hold that the teachings and suggestions of
2 Gershman and Brockman would have suggested the language of claims 35
3 and 41. The rejection of claims 35 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
4 sustained.
5 We turn next to claims 36 and 42. These claims relate to how the
6 failure of the service provider is measured. From the description (fact 27)
7 relating to reduced system down time, we find a suggestion in Brockman of
8 measuring failure of the system provider based on minutes per month that
9 the system provider was unable to respond to a request from a client.
10 Accordingly, we hold that the combined teachings and suggestions of
11 Gershman and Brockman would have suggested the language of claims 36
12 and 42. The rejection of claims 36 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
13 sustained.
14 CONCLUSION OF LAW
15 On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner, as amplified by
16 our comments, supra, that the combined teachings and suggestions of
17 Gershman and Brockman would have suggested to an artisan the language of
18 claim 1-42 and are not convinced of any error on the part of the Examiner in
19 rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) . The decision of the
20 Examiner to reject claims 1-42 is affirmed.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013