Appeal No. 1996-0331
Application 08/239,942
It is noteworthy that the examiner states that in Hawkins data is changed and a spreadsheet is
updated or altered (see Answer, pages 4 and 6), and avoids declaring that Hawkins explicitly teaches
altering an existing data structure as claimed. Indeed, our close review of Hawkins reveals that an
"Excel spreadsheet and graph" are "updated" and Hayes teaches that "data was changed" (Hayes, page
4), but Hawkins never explicitly discloses that a data structure was altered. The updating of a
spreadsheet in Hawkins is the same as changing data, and not altering data structure as required by the
claims on appeal. Thus altering a data structure is an unstated step which neither exists as a matter of
scientific fact nor flows naturally from the elements expressly disclosed in Hawkins. In this instance, the
portions of Hawkins relied upon by the examiner (see page 4, third paragraph; abstract, line 3), merely
establish a possibility regarding what may have resulted in the prior art.
Claims 1 and 31 on appeal further require altering data structure by testing whether "requested
changes" can be made using a "change definition language" by changing a catalog data structure using a
"change statements" (see language of claims 1 and 31 on appeal). Because we find that Hawkins does
not anticipate the claims based on a failure to teach changing a data structure, we also find that Hawkins
fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the features of making changes in a data structure using change
statements, change signals, and a change definition language.
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s argument that even though "the verbiage is not
identical," Hawkins teaches "receiving a list of change statements" at pages 2 and 4 of the reference
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007