Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
2 of the reply brief. However, we agree with appellant that
there is nothing in Harrington suggesting that these commands
involve comparison operations or that the commands consist of any
logical combination, as required by the instant claim.
Accordingly, even if the references are combined, one would not
arrive at the claimed subject matter. Moreover, as appellant
points out, at page 2 of the reply brief, since Harrington is
directed to solving problems of controlling communication between
a host computer and I/O devices, while Tsuchida is interested in
optimizing query processing in relational databases, there would
appear to have been no reason for the artisan to apply the
teachings of Harrington to the system of Tsuchida. The examiner
never comes to grips with this argument.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007