Appeal No. 2003-1619
Application No. 09/442,888
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Herrmann.
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Biegel.
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Thai.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
January 29, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief
(Paper No. 9, filed December 26, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-4,
7-9, 12 and 13, Appellants argue that Herrmann merely discloses
inputs from a user (a human user) interfacing with the system
instead of the claimed inputs from participating components
(brief, page 4). Referring to the “mapping” table of Herrmann
(described as element 140 in col. 9), Appellants point out that
the claimed mapping table is different from this table which is
used for organizing the sorted information in databases (id.).
Appellants further argue that instead of an outcome processor
means for accepting mapped values, Herrmann teaches only a
conventional I/O operation between the user and the system
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007