Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 4
Application No. 08/632,240
(Appeal Br. at A3-A4.)
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Perez 5,319,777 June 7,
1994.
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Perez.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 13-22.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellant or
examiner in toto, we address their main point of contention.
More specifically, the examiner asserts, "FIG 7 of Perez in
and of itself clearly demonstrates distribution, in which
different users work on different slices of a multidimensional
database, and so must have copies of different parts of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007