Appeal 2007-0428
Application 10/210,361
The Examiner rejects the pending claims as follows:
A. Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being
anticipated by Miller.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Miller WO 00/68793 Nov. 16, 2000
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and representative of the
Appellant’s invention. It reads as follows:
1. A method in a data processing system for dynamically tuning
recovery actions in a server, the method comprising:
retrieving dynamic tuning information from a local cache of rules for
decision making;
updating the local cache of rules for decision making based on hints
and symptom entries in a knowledge base to form an updated local cache of
rules and directives for decision making;
receiving an incident by a log analysis engine;
analyzing the updated local cache of rules and directives for decision
making by the log analysis engine to determine a recovery action for the
incident;
responsive to a diagnostic engine receiving a directive, executing a
diagnostic module using the diagnostic engine, wherein the diagnostic
module is selected based on the incident; and
invoking the recovery action based on the directive.
Appellant contends that claims 1 through 20 are not anticipated by
Miller.1 Particularly, Appellant contends that Miller teaches away from the
present invention, and that Miller does not fairly teach or suggest a log
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant
submitted in the Appeal Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37
CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d
1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013