Appeal 2007-0256
Application 10/012,713
configures a usage data application to collect usage data from the at least one
identified network node.
Claim 18 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
18. A method for the collection of usage data from at least one node
of a network, the method comprising:
receiving data identifying at least one node of a network from an
administrative application; and
autonomously configuring a usage data application to collect usage
data from at least one of the at least one identified network node.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ries US 6,061,724 May 9, 2000
Fletcher US 6,108,782 Aug. 22, 2000
Boukobza US 6,122,664 Sept. 19, 2000
Haggard US 6,148,335 Nov. 14, 2000
Rosensteel US 6,363,391 Mar. 26, 2002
(filed May 29, 1998)
Nederveen US 6,853,623 Feb. 8, 2005
(filed Mar. 5, 1999)
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious because neither Haggard nor Boukobza teaches or would have
suggested “autonomously” configuring a usage data application to collect
usage data from an identified network node (Br. 7-13).
We affirm.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013