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.
9].
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
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007