Ex Parte HEPNER et al - Page 9


                 Appeal 2006-2504                                                                                  
                 Application 09/422,998                                                                            
                 (col. 15, ll. 33-35).  Wookey also teaches the operator “ALL OF TYPE” that                        
                 extracts all the values (i.e., multiple values) of a certain type (col. 15, ll. 47-               
                 48). Finally, Wookey teaches the operator “ALL OVER TIME” that obtains                            
                 a range of data for a token over a period of time (i.e., necessarily requiring                    
                 multiple transactions over a period of time) (col. 15, ll. 49-50).   Therefore,                   
                 we agree with the Examiner that Wookey teaches or suggests multiple                               
                 transactions bracketed together, as claimed.  Accordingly, we will sustain                        
                 the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8 as being unpatentable over                          
                 Wookey.                                                                                           
                                              Claims 9, 10, and 17                                                 
                       We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 10,                        
                 and 17 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey.  Appellants                            
                 restate their argument that there is no motivation to modify Wookey in the                        
                 manner suggested by the Examiner. We note that we have fully addressed                            
                 Appellants’ arguments regarding motivation supra.  With respect to each of                        
                 claims 9, 10, and 17, Appellants restate the same argument previously                             
                 presented for claim 8 (i.e., “While the passage teaches a variety of possible                     
                 operators to define alerts, it does not teach or suggest that any of the                          
                 operators can be bracketed together”) (Br. 12). We note that we have fully                        
                 addressed this argument with respect to claim 8, supra. Therefore, we will                        
                 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, and 17 as being                       
                 unpatentable over Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra with                                
                 respect to claim 8.                                                                               




                                                        9                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013