Appeal No. 1997-0587
Application 08/314,644
simulating support of cursors declared “with hold” in a DBMS
that does not support that function [brief, pages 12-15].
We agree with each of appellants’ arguments as set
forth in the brief. Most importantly, neither Adair nor
Demers teaches or suggests simulating a database function on a
heterogeneous DBMS which does not support that function. The
examiner’s attempt to provide a broad definition of simulating
is of no help. The applied prior art simply does not perform
simulating steps as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of the independent
claims which are on appeal before us.
Since the rejection is not sustained with respect to
the independent claims, it is also not sustained with respect
to the dependent claims. We note for the record, however,
that we also agree with each of appellants’ arguments in
consideration of the separate patentability of the dependent
claims.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and
20 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007