Appeal No. 2000-2012
Application No. 08/937,354
database “includes survey results that are obtained from a survey of, for example,
selected customers.” Since the “selected customers” are not one of the requirements,
the definition is as broad as “survey results that are obtained from a survey” which may
be any type of data, either factual or opinion. Appellants argue that the examiner
admits that the database of Abraham is not a survey database and is not static. (See
brief at page 16.) With respect to the static nature of the data, appellants’ specification
states that the data in the survey database remains static between updates or on a
periodic basis between surveys. Therefore, we find that the database is not required to
be static at all times. Therefore, appellants’ argument that the database of Abraham is
not static since there is entry of data is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the examiner does not distinguish between database types
and the rejection is therefore in error. (See brief at pages 16-17.) We disagree with
appellants and do not find that the limitation of “survey database” defines over the
database of Abraham. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 5 and claims
6-9 which appellants elected to group with claim 5.
With respect to dependent claim 10, appellants argue that the examiner has not
addressed the survey database with respect to an importance level and a satisfaction
level. (See brief at page 17.) We agree with appellants and find that Abraham alone
does not teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claim 10, and the examiner has
not provided a convincing line of reasoning with respect to these limitations. Therefore,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims 11-13.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007