Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant states on
page 11 of the Brief that all of the claims stand or fall
together with respect to each of the three rejections. We
agree with appellant's grouping of the claims. Accordingly,
we will consider claim 39 as representative and limit our
discussion thereto. Claims 6, 7, 43, 44, and 46 will stand or
fall with claim 39.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of all of
the claims.
In the rejections (Paper No. 21, pages 2-4), the examiner
essentially asserts that for each rejection, since the
references collectively teach updating of objects and using
both a timestamp and a version number to identify an object,
the method of claim 39 would have been obvious. The examiner,
however, fails to show how each method step is disclosed in or
would have been obvious in view of the references.
For the first rejection of the claims, the examiner
relies on Miller, Lowry, and Mathur. Miller discloses (column
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007