Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
translation (per Ricker) and capture those errors in a tracking database (per
Puckett).
Finally, to the extent that Appellants argued that Puckett is not
relevant prior art on the grounds that it does not involve inbound documents,
we disagree. The use of error log files as a means for capturing errors is
notoriously well known and Puckett is an example where it can be usefully
employed. Error log files provide information about error types and their
frequency, which is helpful in improving a system. One of ordinary skill in
the art reading Puckett would understand that the error log files are used to
improve the Puckett system but have a much wider applicability.
Appellants also argued that “Puckett has nothing to do with an
inbound trading partner document,” (FF 9) with respect to whether Puckett
is relevant to showing the subject matter of step (d) of claim 1. Here, too, we
do not agree.
Appellants did not traverse the Examiner’s finding that Puckett
teaches providing a document identifier and saving the document identifier
as an index for the error data correlated to the received document (FF 8).
Accordingly, Appellants are only arguing that a patentable distinction exists
in the claim defining a source for the data used to identify the error captured
in the database that is different from the one Puckett discloses (i.e., an
inbound document versus Puckett’s events occurring in the data storage
system). However, the information used by Puckett to represent errors in the
storage system captured in the error log database is itself data, and, as such,
is not functionally different from data obtained from any another source for
identifying information to represent errors in a log database. Furthermore,
there is no indication in Puckett that the data used to represent error data in a
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013