Appeal 2007-0256
Application 10/012,713
ANALYSIS
As our findings supra indicate, Haggard identifies at least one
server/node in a network of servers, and autonomously or automatically
configures a usage data application (i.e., the RCF program) to collect usage
data from the identified server nodes without any assistance from any other
part of the system 20 as required by claims 1, 13 and 18. Haggard even uses
a universal agent to collect the usage data as set forth in claim 19 on appeal.
Thus, the autonomous agent teachings of Boukobza are merely cumulative
to teachings already present in Haggard.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 8, 13 to 16, 18 and 19
is sustained based on the teachings of Haggard. The obviousness rejections
of claims 5, 9 to 12, 17 and 20 are sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the
argument presented for claims 1, 13 and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
kis
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P. O. BOX 272400
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013