Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 6
Application No. 09/207,420
Here, Fehskens discloses a "management specification for an entity. . . ."
Col. 16, l. 51. The appellant admits that the reference's management specification
includes a collection of references to superior entities. To wit, he states "[a]s is clear . .
. , the mechanism provided by the applied reference provides for each entity definition
to identify superior entities. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 5.) For its part, Fehskens confirms that,
"[i]f the entity definition is for a subordinate entity, it has a superior field 50 which
identifies the superior entities in the hierarchy." Col. 17 at ll. 31-33.
We find, furthermore, that reference's management specification also includes a
collection of references to possible subordinate entities. Specifically, "the body
portion 53 of a management specification includes . . . a subordinate entity list 57, if
the entity class contains any subordinate entities. If the body portion 53 includes a
subordinate entity list 57, each item in the subordinate entity list 57 comprises an entity
definition 46 (FIG. 3A), with the name field 47 including 'SUBORDINATE'." Id. at ll.
57-65 (emphasis added). Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2
and 5, which fall therewith.
Second, the examiner asserts, "[t]he unique identification of an entity as a
superior or subordinate is also disclosed in Fehskens." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) He
explains, "[a]n entity definition 46 includes a name field 47 that includes a name and a
code by which the entity can be identified. In addition, the name field 47 identifies the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007