Appeal No. 1997-0587
Application 08/314,644
A claim must set out and circumscribe a particular
area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity
when read in light of the disclosure as it would be by the
artisan. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238
(CCPA 1971); In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 194 USPQ 187 (CCPA
1977). Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is
claimed in light of the specification. Seattle Box Co., v.
Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The first part of the rejection seems to contend that
the two claimed simulating steps do not result in a method of
compensating for functional differences between heterogeneous
database management systems as indicated by the preamble. We
do not agree. When the claims are properly interpreted in
light of the disclosure, it is clear that the two claimed
simulating steps, along with additional steps, do compensate
for functional differences between heterogeneous database
management systems.
The second part of the rejection asks how the steps of
simulating are actually performed to compensate for functional
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007