Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
ENTITIES 21, such as customer 60, account management
61, returned material 62, sales order history 63,
ship 64, product database 65, world wide price list
66, and inventory 67, are joined by relationship
connections 68-73 which represent operational or
business rules, to form an operational system
network.
From this disclosure, appellant contends that “rule
information...implemented as relationships ‘acts’ on classes
of objects to join the objects together to form an operational
system network” [principal brief - page 5] and concludes that
the skilled artisan “would be able to use relationships to
join object classes together without undue experimentation.”
We agree with the examiner that appellant’s response does
not relate to the claim language. We fail to see how the
recited portion of the specification relates to “rule
information to act on classes of said objects,” as claimed.
Appellant speaks of “relationships.” However, “relationships”
are already recited on line 3 of claim 12 as “relationships
interconnecting said plurality of objects...” Therefore, it
would appear that the later recited “rule information” would
be something separate and distinct from “relationships.”
Therefore, appellant’s argument that the artisan would be able
to use “relationships” to join object classes would appear to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007