Appeal No. 1997-0587
Application 08/314,644
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, 19 and 20,
which stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page
4], we will consider the rejection with respect to claim 1.
The examiner cites Adair as teaching the step of simulating
support of multiple pending actions on a single connection.
Demers is cited as teaching the step of simulating support of
cursors “with hold.” The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to combine the teachings of the
cited references [Final Rejection, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to
interpret the claimed invention consistently with the
disclosure. Specifically, appellants argue that Adair does
not teach a connection as recited in claim 1, and that Adair
does not simulate support of multiple pending database actions
on a single connection in a DBMS that does not support that
function. Appellants also argue that Demers does not teach
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007