Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
The Reference
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of anticipation:
Roberts U.S. Pat. 6,574,195 B2 June 3, 2003
The Rejection
1. The Examiner entered a Final Rejection on November 1, 2005.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Roberts, U.S. Patent 6,574, 195 B2, issued June 3, 2003,
based on an application filed April 19, 2000.
3. Appellant appealed from the Final Rejection. An Appeal Brief was filed on
March 24, 2006.
4. The Examiner entered an Examiner’s Answer on June 19, 2006.
5. No Reply Brief was filed.
ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-56 based on anticipation. More particularly, do the
following specific claims limitations argued by Appellant read on the Roberts
reference in the manner asserted by the Examiner?
Issue 1
Do the following claim limitations argued by Appellant (shown in italics)
read on Roberts in the manner asserted by the Examiner?
determining at least one performance related function, based on at
least one previously input specification and type of the target system,
to apply to the one or more requests;
(See all independent claims 1, 11, 22, 25, 28, 29, 39, 50, 53, and 56).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013