Appeal No. 96-1898
Application No. 07/921,826
The issue here is whether Burns teaches a navigator
connected to the database for enabling browsing among objects
and relationships independent of the database. The examiner
contends that such browsing is taught by Burns, although the
examiner never explains where, in Burns, there is a teaching
of the “independent” limitation. Appellant argues that Burns
merely suggests a database dependent browser but never
elucidates as to why Burns is considered to be a database
dependent browser as opposed to a browser independent of the
database.
We make no representation, one way or another, as to the
teaching of Burns since we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for technical reasons. That is,
for reasons, infra, we make a new ground of rejection of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (as well as under the
first paragraph) and, as such, we will not speculate as to the
meaning of claim limitations in order to apply prior art. In
re Steele, supra.
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007