Appeal No. 96-0511
Application 08/158,837
necessary to determine whether the claims can be read on the
resulting device.
Regarding claim 23, we also note that Childers does not
disclose comparing fetched data with a temporarily stored
version of the test data, as required by that claim. Childers
does not explain how the fetched data is to be analyzed.
Also, neither Tanigawa nor Childers suggest comparing data
fetched from one row with data fetched from another row, as
required by independent claims 24, 32, and 52.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of the
independent claims 23, 24, 32, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of Childers is reversed, as
is the rejection of dependent claims 25, 26, and 39, which
also stand rejected over those references. The rejection of
independent claim 52 and dependent claims 40-43, 50, 51, 59,
and 60 under § 103 as unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of
Childers and Furutani is reversed because the deficiencies
described above are not remedied by Furutani.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007