Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Feb. 02, 2006) and
Reply Brief (filed May 30, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 41, 42, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 66-68,
70, 74, 75, 79, 80, 86, and 87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Denning. Claims 20, 22, 43,
50, 58, 60, 81, and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomson in view of Denning, and further in view of
Pfleeger. Claims 23-27, 34-36, 38-40, 45-47, 52-54, 61-65, 71-73, 76-78,
83-85, and 90-92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomson in view of Denning, and further in view of
Gaskell. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomson in view of Denning, and further in view of
Johansson. Claims 32, 44, 51, 69, 82, and 89 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomson in view of Denning,
and further in view of Abraham.
Claims 86-92 and 48-54 are rejected under [Section] 101 as claiming
a data structure that does not define any structural and functional
interrelationships between a database and other claimed aspects of the
invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. The
claims define in substance a database having a table with at least one column
of encrypted data, and information for controlling access to at least one
column wherein the information includes cryptographic information
associated with the encrypted column of data. However, no functional
interrelationship between the data structure and the information is defined.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013