Appeal No. 97-1353 Page 2
Application No. 07/843,704
impossible to define all possible tree structures in advance.
(Paper No. 1 (Spec.) at 2-3.)
Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together.
(Paper 13 (App. Br.) at 7.) We select claim 15 to represent
the claims on appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Claim 1, the
only other independent claim pending, is the system analogue
for the method of claim 15. Claim 15 defines the claimed
subject matter as follows:
A computerized method for describing and
generating in memory a user[-]defined arbitrary data
structure corresponding to a tree having nodes,
comprising the steps of:
providing a table for receiving data describing
each node of a user[-]defined tree structure, said
data including user[-]defined attribute data for
each said node, said attribute data including node
relationships, said table comprising a set of rows
and a set of columns with each row corresponding to
a single node contained in said user[-]defined tree
structure and each column corresponding to an
attribute of said nodes;
entering user[-]defined attribute data into said
table;
interpreting said table to allocate an area in
a memory for each of said nodes and respectively2
setting said attribute data of said nodes in said
allocated memory areas; and
2 Appellants amended claims 1 and 15 to change "said
memory" to "a memory". (Paper No. 6 at 3 and 6, entered 20
Sep. 1995.) The purpose of this amendment is not explained.
It appears to create an ambiguity since it is not clear how
this memory differs from the memory in the preamble.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007