Appeal 2007-0256
Application 10/012,713
Haggard, Boukobza and Fletcher are applied together in the obviousness
rejection of claim 9. Haggard, Boukobza and Nederveen are applied
together in the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11, 17 and 20. Haggard,
Boukobza and Ries are applied together in the obviousness rejection of
claim 12.
As indicated supra, appellant contends that neither Haggard nor
Boukobza teaches or would have suggested to the skilled artisan to
“autonomously” configure an application to collect usage data from at least
one node as required by independent claims 1, 13 and 18 on appeal.
Appellant also contends that the applied references do not generate and
configure at least one agent to collect usage data from at least one node as
required by claim 19 on appeal (Br. 14).
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for claims 2
to 12, 14 to 17 and 20 apart from those presented for independent claims 1,
13 and 18.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67
(CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2
(CCPA 1966).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013