Ex parte OLSON et al. - Page 7




               Appeal No. 1996-0331                                                                                               
               Application 08/239,942                                                                                             


               (Answer, page 6) since changes are made to a spreadsheet.  This line of reasoning smacks of                        

               obviousness, and considerations of obviousness are not applicable to the rejection before us under 35              

               U.S.C.  102.  We agree with appellants (Brief, page 4; Reply Brief, page 1) that Hawkins discloses                

               changing existing data as opposed to an existing data structure, and that Hawkins does not specifically            

               disclose any use of a "change indication signal," "change                                                          





               statements," a "list of change statements,"  or the use of a "change definition language" or a "data               

               description catalog."  Thus, the examiner has not shown that every element of the claims is present in             

               Hawkins either explicitly or inherently.                                                                           

                      Because an important recited feature of appellant’s claims 1 and 31 on appeal, of altering a                

               data structure and not just altering data, is neither expressly nor inherently disclosed by the applied            

               reference to Hawkins, we must conclude that appellants’ claims 1 and 31 are not anticipated by                     

               Hawkins under the doctrine of inherency.  The examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of                    

               anticipation.                                                                                                      

                      Lastly, we are not persuaded by the examiner’s argument (Answer, page 6) that "Hawkins                      

               teaches ‘the format of a change description language constituting a superset of an SQL structured query            

               language’" at page 1, paragraph 1.  Our close review of Hawkins reveals no quote or teaching of this               


                                                                7                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007