Appeal No. 2002-1687
Application No. 09/188,712
Appellants point out that the Examiner has conceded that Elliott does not teach
loading “enriched information on to [sic] an on-line analytical processing routine.” See
page 8 of Appellants’ brief. Appellants argue that Peters does not teach uploading an
on-line analytical processing routine and executing interactive analysis as required in
each of Appellants’ independent claims. Appellants argue that the reference teachings,
even if combined, would not have led artisans to the invention claimed. See page 9 of
Appellants’ brief.
In response, the Examiner states that Peters does teach in column 9, lines 9
through 33 uploading an on-line analytical processing routine and executing interactive
analysis as required by each of the independent claims. The Examiner points out that
Peters teaches in column 9, lines 9 thorough 13, elements that permit establishing a
data link over which information can be transferred. The Examiner argues that this
teaching reads directly on Appellants’ claimed limitation of uploading an on-line
analytical routine and executing interactive analysis as required in each of the
independent claims. See pages 10 and 11 of the Examiner’s answer.
In response, Appellants argue that Peters does not teach analytical processing
and management tool provisions that are required for the on-line analytical processing
routine. Appellants argue that the Examiner has improperly interpreted the “on-line
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007