Appeal 2007-0428
Application 10/210,361
analysis engine for receiving an incident and for analyzing rules and
directives in a local cache to determine a recovery action. Appellant further
contends that Miller does not teach a diagnostic engine for executing a
diagnostic module selected based on an incident to invoke a recovery action.
(Br. 12). The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Miller teaches the
claimed analysis and diagnostic engines as a database system having at least
one entry that matches a received incident and at least another entry that
provides a solution for the incident. (Answer 4, 8). Consequently, the
Examiner concludes that Miller anticipates claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), does Miller anticipate the claimed invention
when Miller teaches a software-driven system that utilizes a customer
knowledge base, an engine and primitives for diagnosing and resolving
problems?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant invented a remote data processing system and a computer
software for providing a recovery action for an identified incident. First, a
utility module (500) uses the hints and symptoms2 entries as a knowledge
base (510) to update a local cache of rules (520) for decision making with
the latest information pertaining to an identified incident for which a
2 Appellant’s specification defines a symptom as data that uniquely
identifies an incident. The specification also defines a hint as output text
that provides the descriptive association between the incident and the cause.
Also, a hint describes the recovery action for the user. (Specification 11, ll.
12-18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013