Appeal No. 1998-0427
Application No. 08/283,466
discloses a separate object that describes the relationships between data objects and attributes of data
objects. The examiner merely points to various elements in Crus’ drawings as corresponding to various
claimed elements (Fig. 7, item 92 for the “fourth means,” Fig. 6, items 36, 42, 60, 64, 74 for the “fifth
means,” and Fig. 7, item 91 for the “sixth and seventh means”) without any explanation as to why these
elements correspond to the claimed elements. As for combining the references, the examiner reasons
that the system of Crus “would allow Heffernan’s to have direct control over the storage of data objects
and attributes,” offering no explanation as to why direct control might have been desired or deemed
necessary and offering no explanation as to the manner in which such a combination would, or could,
even be made.
Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
claim 4. We do not mean to imply that such a case could not have been made in view of the applied
references, only that the examiner has not done so.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007