Appeal No. 96-3323
Application 08/022,922
architecture of an object database which could be querried by a relational
database was useful for computer aided design and file sharing of versioned
objects in a cooperative network environment. (answer, pgs. 5-6)
(Emphasis in the original deleted and emphasis added.)
Using the Examiner’s rejection as set forth in the final rejection and the Examiner’s
answer, it is unclear what basis, either obviousness or inherency, the Examiner is relying
upon to meet the “assembly structure database” claim limitation which the Examiner has
explicitly stated is not taught by the prior art references.
Appellant argues that the Examiner concedes that the “assembly structure
database” is not shown in any of the references and that this limitation would not be
“necessary” as the Examiner asserts in the answer on pages 4-5. We agree with
appellant’s argument that the Examiner's rejection is in error. With respect to appellant’s
argument to the Examiner’s statement that “the assembly structure database would have
been necessary to interface all parts into an integral design,” we agree with appellant that if
the assembly database were not taught by the prior art references as the Examiner stated,
then some additional line of reasoning would have been necessary for the Examiner to set
forth a prima facie case.
If the Examiner is relying upon inherency for the prior art meeting this limitation, we
find that the Examiner has not set forth a showing why the “assembly structure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007