Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 7
Application No. 09/207,420
entity as a global or subordinate entity and identifies a class name for the entity
(column 17, lines 25 - 33)." (Id.) The appellant argues, "[a]bsent from . . . the reference
is the disclosure of any mechanism for unique identification of an entity through the
designation of an organizational unit and a coding, with such coding further defined as
being unique within the organizational unit." (Appeal Br. at 6-7.)
Claim 3 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "an entity is uniquely
identified by a designation of an organizational unit within which the entity exists
together with a coding which is unique at least within said organizational unit." Giving
the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require a designation of
an organizational unit within which an entity exists and a code that is unique at least
within the organizational unit.
The appellant admits that the passage cited by the examiner "describes a name
field 47 that includes a name and a code by which the entity can be identified." (Appeal
Br. at 6.) For its part, Fehskens confirms that "[a]n entity definition 46 includes a name
field 47 that includes a name and a code by which the entity can be identified." Col. 17,
ll. 28-30. "In addition, the name field 47 identifies the entity as a global or subordinate
entity and identifies a class name for the entity." Id. at ll. 30-32. Because the
reference's class name designates the class of the entity, we find that the class name
designates the organizational unit within which the entity exists. Because Fehskens'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007