Appeal 2007-0261
Application 09/915,070
to us to have ample basis from which to conclude the obviousness from an
artisan’s perspective of the broadly recited “providing” clauses as argued at
the end of independent claims 1 and 13 on appeal.
When the features of argued dependent claims 8 and 9 are considered
in light of these noted teachings, again we conclude that the artisan would
have found them obvious. With respect to dependent claim 8, we find
persuasive the Examiner’s observations in the paragraph bridging pages 9
and 10 of the Answer where the Examiner recognizes the negative limitation
recited in this claim and persuasively concludes that the bottom line of the
subject matter of claim 8 is to “suggest anything other than the values of said
plurality of measurements that exceed said value of the average of previous
measurements plus a preselected value can be used to calculate subsequent
average values.” We note as well since no Reply Brief has been filed that
the Examiner’s positions with respect to dependent claim 9 have not been
traversed, such as the observation at pages 10 and 11 that the nature of the
measurements in dependent claim 9 are exemplary of many well-known
means of providing an indication if a measurement exceeds the bounds of
normal behavior. With respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, the latter
columns of Waclawsky actually teach the artisan to modify the monitoring,
the benchmark, the expert criteria, and the operability of the expert system
160 to whatever is desired.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013