Appeal 2007-0256
Application 10/012,713
ISSUE
Does the applied prior art teach or suggest autonomously configuring
a usage data application to collect usage data from an identified node?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The invention described by Appellant is a usage data monitoring
system and method in which a network topology application 140 informs a
monitoring application 120 of the topology of the data sources/nodes 110-1
to 110-n (Specification 8, ll. 7-9, Specification 13, ll. 14-22; Fig. 1). A
usage data application at the monitoring application 120 is autonomously
configured to collect usage data from at least one of the identified data
sources/nodes (Specification 13, ll. 23-30).
Haggard describes a system and method for collecting
performance/usage data from a plurality of servers (col. 2, ll. 48-51). In one
embodiment, a data processing system 20 uses a server resource
management (SRM) architecture that runs a remote command facility (RCF)
program to collect usage data from a plurality of servers (col. 6, ll. 4-13). By
using the RCF program, the server usage data collection by the system 20 is
“automated” (col. 7, ll. 16-22). Haggard even takes advantage of a universal
agent to collect the usage data from the servers (col. 6, ll. 36-59).
Boukobza describes a method of monitoring usage data from a
plurality of nodes. In the method, a management node autonomously
configures agents located at monitored nodes (Abstract; col. 4, l. 55 to col. 5,
l. 21).
Haggard and Boukobza are applied together in the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 8, 13 to 16, 18 and 19. Haggard, Boukobza
and Rosensteel are applied together in the obviousness rejection of claim 5.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013