Ex Parte HEPNER et al - Page 12


                Appeal 2006-2504                                                                                   
                Application 09/422,998                                                                             
                       We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has                               
                improperly combined Wookey with Sybase. We note that we have fully                                 
                addressed Appellants’ arguments regarding motivation to modify Wookey                              
                (see discussion of claim 1 supra).  In addition, we find the Examiner has                          
                merely relied upon the Sybase reference as being exemplary of the                                  
                notoriously well known use of SQL (Structured Query Language).  Indeed,                            
                we note that Appellants’ own Specification expressly discloses SQL as                              
                known prior art:                                                                                   
                       Also existing in the prior art are database query languages that                            
                       allow a user to specify a particular query, whereby the user can                            
                       be notified of a specified condition existing with the derived                              
                       data resulting from the specified query …. For instance, the                                
                       user may specify a query using Structured Query Language                                    
                       (“SQL”) that results in derived data, such as whether a new                                 
                       employee record has been added to the database. That is, the                                
                       result of such query is derived data about information contained                            
                       within the database.                                                                        
                       (Specification, p. 6, ¶ 2).                                                                 
                       With respect to specific limitations of claim 7, Appellants again argue                     
                that Wookey does not teach or suggest receiving a request from a client and                        
                querying a system as specified by the request (Br. 19). Because we have                            
                found supra that Wookey teaches receiving a request from a client, and                             
                querying the system as specified by the request, we will sustain the                               
                Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Wookey for the                          
                same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.                                              
                                                    Claim 14                                                       
                       Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14 as                       
                being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey in view of Sybase.                                 

                                                        12                                                         

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013