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