Appeal No. 2000-0249 Page 5
Application No. 08/632,240
global spreadsheet.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) In contrast,
the appellant argues, "[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in
Perez that the centralized database is distributed to other
servers or locations on the network." (Reply Br. at 4.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key
legal question -- what is the invention claimed?” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(emphasis in original). “Claim
interpretation ... will normally control the remainder of the
decisional process.” Id. at 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d at 1597. Here,
claims 1 and 13 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: “a distributed N-dimensional database.”
Accordingly, the limitations require storing complete copies
of an N-dimensional database at several locations in a
computer network wherein the copies have the same number of
dimensions as the database.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007