Appeal No. 1997-0587
Application 08/314,644
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of all the appealed
claims under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. With
respect to representative, independent claim 1, the rejection
states:
The body of the claim is not functionally
tied to the invention as set forth in the
preamble. It is unclear as to how the
functional differences between
heterogeneous database management systems
are actually compensated for as set forth
in the preamble. The body of the claim
merely recites the step of simulating
support of multiple pending actions, and
cursors “with hold”, which are mere
statements of desired results. It is
therefore unclear as to how said steps of
simulating are actually performed to
compensate for functional differences.
Thus, the applicant failed to specifically
detail a series of logical steps in the
body of the claim that amount to the
accomplishment of said simulating tasks and
the compensation of functional differences
therefor. [Final Rejection, page 3].
Appellants respond that each of the appealed claims satisfies
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007