Appeal 2007-0428
Application 10/210,361
Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent claims 2 and 5 through 19 as
being anticipated by Miller.
Next, we find that the Examiner properly rejected dependent claims 3,
4, and 20 as being anticipated by Miller. Particularly, we find that Miller’s
disclosure of matching a specified problem with entries in the customer
knowledge base to locate a solution teaches the incident and dynamic tuning
information, as recited in claim 3. Similarly, we find that Miller’s update
process allows the customer knowledge base to capture new recovery data,
against which an identified problem is matched to retrieve a solution. Thus,
Miller does teach the limitations of claims 4 and 20. After considering the
entire record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
dependent claims 3, 4 and 20 as being anticipated by Miller.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Miller anticipates the claimed invention
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) when Miller teaches a software-driven system that
utilizes a customer knowledge base, an engine and primitives for diagnosing
and resolving problems.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Miller.
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).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013