Appeal No. 1997-2055
Application No. 08/175,873
singular in nature." Appellants therefore conclude that
"Hullot cannot show or suggest a link between two units of
behavior and a single abstract event as set forth within Claim
1" (Brief, page 7). We note that appellants refer to the
connection of fields rather than actions. However, the
portion relied upon by the examiner, column 5, line 65-column
6, line 18, indicates to us that the same singular connections
occur with respect to actions. Each action is connected
individually using the target variable. Therefore, we find no
execution of plural action objects in response to a single
abstract event. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3 over Hullot.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 4 through
7, Priven fails to cure the deficiencies of Hullot.1
Accordingly, we must reverse the rejection of claims 4 through
7.
CONCLUSION
We also note that for claim 3 the examiner states (Office action, page1
6) that "the examiner cannot determine what [sic, is] being claimed in this
claim and hence has difficulty applying art," although the examiner includes
claim 3 in the art rejection and does not reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
112. Since claims 4 through 7 all depend from claim 3, it would seem that the
rejection thereof likewise would be difficult.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007