Appeal No. 1999-1557
Application 08/650,397
“database systems” or “queries,” a database related
instruction, we further find that Naito does not suggest these
limitations. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We
therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Naito. Independent claims 12, 17
and 23 also include the limitations of
“database systems” and “queries.” Without further
consideration,
we conclude that in the absence of any teaching or suggestion
of these two limitations, that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12, 17
and 23 as obvious over Naito. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-
16, and 18-22 also require at least the “database” limitation.
Naito does not teach or suggest this limitation. Strickland
fails to close the gap and likewise does not teach or suggest
this limitation either. Furthermore, we find no reason to
combine Strickland and Naito to satisfy this essential
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007