Appeal 2006-2937
Application 09/840,188
With respect to dependent claim 38, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 24 which we did not
find persuasive. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 38
over Thomson, Denning, and Gaskell and the dependent claims which
Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 16 of the Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 52, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 24 which we did not
find persuasive. Additionally, we find that the combination of
Thomson and Denning would have had data in plural rows and
columns, as discussed above, which would teach the at least two
columns. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive, and we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 52 over
Thomson, Denning, and Gaskell and the dependent claims which
Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 17 of the Brief.
With respect to dependent claim 62, Appellant relies upon the
arguments made with respect to dependent claim 24 which we did not
find persuasive. Additionally, we find that the combination of
Thomson and Denning would have had data in plural rows and
columns which is a collection of records maintained as fields, as
disclosed by Denning. Therefore, Appellant's argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 62 over Thomson, Denning, and Gaskell and the dependent
claims which Appellant has elected to group therewith on page 17 of
the Brief.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013