Ex parte HINTZ et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1997-0243                                                        
          Application 08/168,976                                                      

          distinction of the invention over Crus and Knuth and conclude               
          that “[i]n view of the significant technical distinctions                   
          between the invention of claim 1 and Crus et al., the                       
          Examiner’s assertion that Crus et al. discloses the 'claimed                
          extracting of the primary and foreign keys' is believed to be               
          incorrect.  This incorrect assertion is not made correct by                 
          combining it with the generic 'sort' teaching of Knuth."  [Id.              
               After reviewing the further response by the Examiner                   
          [answer, pages 7 to 8] and Appellants’ arguments [reply brief,              
          page 3], we are of the view that claim 1 calls for a method of              
          creating a specific type of data structure involving the steps              
          of “extracting, in parallel, ...,” “constructing a SORT record              
          ...,” and “collating the FK SORT records ....”.  We do not                  
          find these steps in either of these references or their                     
          combination.  Instead, Crus states that “[e]ach relationship                
          descriptor contains a complete description of a referential                 
          constraint, ...  The use of meta-data descriptors facilitates               
          ... speedy enforcement of the constraints by a single, shared               
          procedure ....” [Abstract].  The Examiner has not convinced us              
          how the teachings of Crus correspond to the claimed steps of                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007