Ex Parte Dahl - Page 5

                  Appeal   2006-2937                                                                                           
                  Application   09/840,188                                                                                     
                  The portion of the claim "for controlling access to at least one column of                                   
                  data" merely describes an intended use and does not narrow the scope of the                                  
                  claim.  Also, the portion of the claim "the information including                                            
                  cryptographic information associated with the encrypted column of data"                                      
                  does not disclose any functional interrelationship, only an association. For                                 
                  these reasons, the subject matter of these claims are deemed to be                                           

                       In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful                                          
                  consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art                              
                  references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the                                 
                  Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations that                                    
                       At the outset, we note that Appellant’s Brief is non-compliant with 37                                  
                  C.F.R.  41.37 wherein the Summary of the Claimed Invention does not                                         
                  include a summary of each of the independent claims.  Rather than remand                                     
                  the case at this time or immediately prior to the oral hearing, we will address                              
                  Appellant’s Brief in the present condition.                                                                  
                                                      35 U.S.C.  101                                                          
                       While Appellant’s arguments in response to the Examiner’s rejection are                                 
                  brief, Appellant factually distinguishes the factual situations in In re                                     
                  Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re                                           
                  Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  Appellant’s argue                                     
                  that the database management system is more than merely a database.  From                                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013