Appeal 2007-0428
Application 10/210,361
As set forth in the facts section above, Miller teaches a software-
driven system that utilizes an engine, a knowledge database and primitives
to locate solutions to a problem. Similarly to the claimed invention, Miller
teaches executing software codes to enable the engine to diagnose and
resolve problems. Particularly, Miller matches a specified problem with
entries in the customer knowledge database to identify a corresponding
solution. We consequently find that both Miller and the claimed invention
diagnose and resolve a specific problem by using an engine to match the
problem with entries in the knowledge base, and to identify an entry/module
that provides a corresponding solution. Thus, we conclude that Miller’s
teaching of software modules that implement and perform the functions of
the claimed log analysis and diagnostic engines anticipates representative
claim 1.
We note that Miller’s remarks, reproduced in footnote 4 supra,
indicating a preference for the present approach, as opposed to using an
inference engine, does not have any bearing on its ability to perform the
functions of Appellant’s log analysis engine. This is because the functions of
comparing a problem with entries in a database do not necessarily require
performing any inference. Therefore, an inference engine is not required in
the claimed invention, and Miller need not particularly teach it. Thus, we
find that Miller’s disclosure does not teach away from Appellant’s invention
since it would not lead one of ordinary skill in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the Appellant. After considering the entire record
before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting representative
claim 1 as being anticipated by Miller. We find for the same reasons that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013