Appeal 2007-2020
Application 10/028,906
Chess teaches, in the indicated section, that an anti-virus program may
begin a scan of the system in response to user input or periodically, in
accordance with a timer. Alternatively, the scan can be initiated in response
to a document changing event such as each occurrence of the document
changing, the “Nth” occurrence of a document changing, or a certain number
of documents having changed.
We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 4) that the
reference does not support the Examiner’s finding with respect to Chess and
maintenance of a statistical log. In particular, we do not find any disclosure
or suggestion in the indicated section of Chess of maintaining in a database
the “Nth” occurrence of the document being scanned (Answer 5), or of a
number of times the document has been reviewed for changes (Id. 12).
Chess describes what is maintained in a database with respect to each
document resident in the system (e.g., col. 4, ll. 22-61; Fig. 2, ref. num. 203,
204), which does not appear to include either of the values that the Examiner
seems to imply in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of Chess.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner’s reading is correct,
maintaining in a database the “Nth” occurrence of a document being
scanned, or the number of times a document has been reviewed for changes,
does not teach or suggest maintaining a statistical log having an entry for
each file sent to the computer for review, each entry being arranged to store
a count value indicating the number of times that the file has been sent to the
computer for review.
Nor has the Examiner offered any line of reasoning to suggest that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to the artisan. In order to
determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine known elements
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013