Appeal No. 1998-0427
Application No. 08/283,466
claims. While the examiner contends that the dictionary (set forth in Heffernan’s claims 9 through 11)
of Heffernan is “equivalent to the appellant’s first means” [answer-page 5], it is unclear to us how the
examiner arrives at this conclusion of equivalence. In a rejection based on anticipation, it should be a
simple matter for the examiner to particularly point out exactly which elements of a prior art reference
correspond to instant claimed elements. However, the examiner has not specifically identified what it is
in the dictionary of Heffernan which anticipates the claimed “first means” and we fail to see the
equivalence.
We find ourselves in agreement with appellant that there appears to be nothing in the Heffernan
disclosure that teaches a separate object that describes the relationships between data objects and
attributes of data objects.
Based on the evidence provided by the examiner in applying Heffernan, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
Turning now to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner applied Crus for the
teaching of a fourth, fifth and sixth means within the “first means” of claim 1, as recited in claim 4.
However, while we recognize that Crus is directed to a relational data base management system with a
pointer for pointing to other objects, a record descriptor and a separate object in the data base system
which can be modified, and may be very relevant to the instant claimed subject matter, the examiner has
not satisfactorily explained how or why Crus is to be combined with Heffernan or how the combination
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007