Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 36.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings (final
rejection, page 2) that McElhiney discloses “a computer having one
or more data storage devices connected thereto,” and “a relational
database management system, executed by the computer, for managing
a relational database stored on the data storage devices.” The
examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 3) that “McElhiney
does not explicitly teach reducing data retrieved from the
relational database in bulk by reducing the number of columns or
rows in the data.” The examiner believes, however, that “since
McElhiney teaches when search table exceeds a predetermined value,
it is split into subtables, replacing one partition with two
smaller ones [col. 9, lines 1-7], it can can be understood that the
columns and rows in the data from the search table are split up
accordingly.” (final rejection, page 3). The examiner then reaches
the conclusion (final rejection, page 3) that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Data Processing art at the
time of the invention to add this feature to the system of
McElhiney as an efficient means to increase the processing time.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007