Appeal 2007-1505
Application 10/279,481
a computer implemented method of evolving (Su calls it transforming) one
XML schema to another. The group of transformation operations includes:
Insert, Delete, and Relabel (which is similar to Appellant’s replacement).
However, it is not readily apparent to us how either Su or Ripley teach or
suggest the validation step as claimed. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 8 for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claims 1 and 16.
Claim 11.
Claim 11 recites in the preamble “[a] computer-implemented method
for determining whether a first set of XML documents contains a second set
of XML documents, said first set of XML documents being the set of all
valid XML documents of a first XML schema and said second set of XML
documents being the set of all valid XML documents of a second XML
schema.” The claim further recites various steps that are performed on the
two XML schemas, and recites “returning false if said first element list does
not contain said second element list.” As the method steps recited in the
claim relate to the elements recited in the claim preamble, we consider the
preamble to further limit the claim. Thus, we find that the scope of claim 11
is limited to a method where two sets of documents (of different schema or
format) are compared.
As discussed above in our findings of fact, Su teaches a system for
transforming data from one XML schema to another XML schema. Su’s
system analyses and compares the two schemas to determine the operations
required to transform documents from one schema to another. We are
unable to find that Su teaches comparing documents of the schema to each
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013