Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
contended by appellant at page 2 of the reply brief, then it
is not understood how this differs from “relationships
connecting...,” recited previously in the claim. Further, it
is unclear what type of action is intended by the rule
information “to act” on classes of objects.
We turn now to the prior art rejections.
First, with regard to the rejection of claims 12 through
22 under 35 U.S.C. 103, we will summarily reverse this
rejection since a claim which is indefinite and not completely
understood cannot, logically, have prior art applied against
it. By making this technical reversal of the prior art based
rejection of claims 12 through 22, it should not be implied
that the art relied on by the examiner would not be relevant
relative to claims of the present scope containing definite
limitations. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-863, 134 USPQ
292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
With regard to claims 1 and 3 through 10, the examiner
contends that Ferrer discloses the identification and defining
a plurality of data objects, formulating relationships between
the data objects and storing the data objects, relationships
and physical storage information as a network. The examiner
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007