Appeal 2007-1724
Application 10/284,347
Additionally, Engel teaches that it is "important to select a baseline
period that is sufficiently long to assure that the prediction that will be
performed is meaningful” (Engel, column 9, ll. 23-25). Here, we find this
need to select a baseline would have suggested to those skilled in the art
some input from the user, whether it be a user at (1) the time of
implementation of the performance monitoring system or (2) in the design of
the performance monitoring.
Additionally, we find that the teachings of Rakoshitz with respect to
GUI’s (Graphical User Interfaces) shown in figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 clearly
teach and suggest use of user interaction, input and selectivity of
performance data where the Refresh button is clearly a request, by the user,
for an update of the desired performance information. Therefore,
Appellant's argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, Appellant’s contend that the summarizing of the
retrieved performance data for the one or more devices is not taught by
Engel since Engel does not teach or suggest collecting performance statistics
on “devices” (Br. 15). We disagree with Appellant’s since we find that
Engel does teach performance monitoring of “devices,” as discussed above.
Additionally, we find that Rakoshitz teaches performance monitoring of
devices and summarizing the retrieved data relating to those devices to
provide statistics regarding those devices to monitor bandwith consumption
(Rakoshitz, column 17-21). Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument
to be persuasive.
Appellant’s further contends that Engel does not teach assigning a
value to each individual summary (Br. 15-16). Here, the Examiner relies
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013