Appeal No. 2000-0240
Application No. 08/285,534
databases, as discussed above. We agree with appellants that Weinreb does not teach
or fairly suggest this limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 39, 51, 76, 77, 79, and 80 and their dependent claims.
With respect to independent claims 48 and 78 and dependent claims 42-44, 49,
50, 56-64, 68, and 69, appellants argue that neither Weinreb nor Medamana teaches or
fairly suggests the grouping of a plurality of physical databases and account information
into a logical database for approving access to the physical databases. (See brief at
page 50 et seq.) We agree with appellants. The examiner acknowledges the lack of
account information in the teaching of Weinreb and relies on the teachings of Medamana
to teach the use of account information to access a database. We have reviewed those
portions of Medamana cited by the examiner, but do not find that Medamana teaches or
fairly suggests the grouping of physical databases into a logical database and
determination of access thereto. Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 48 and 78 and dependent claims 42-44, 49, 50, 56-64, 68, and 69.
CONCLUSION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007