Appeal No. 2002-0119
Application No. 09/015,713
(Paper No. 10, filed October 10, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Schumacher for teaching stored table
entries having a long-name field as the headings of product
description and a related-items field as the product aliases
except for the claimed accessing table entries that have a short-
name field (answer, page 3). The Examiner further relies on
Hamilton for teaching the missing elements as the “j” entries in
the subset list that includes an IDL short name and takes the
position that the product description of Schumacher in
combination with the short names of Hamilton would have taught
the claimed subject matter (id.).
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Schumacher
and Hamilton lacks proper motivation and would not have resulted
in the claimed structure, the Examiner provides no technical
principle for such combination and merely relies on Schumacher’s
disclosing short name features which precludes adding such
feature from Hamilton (brief, page 5). Additionally, Appellant
asserts that the combination would have still come short of the
claimed consulting the short name field and its specific use
(brief, page 6). Appellant further asserts that Schumacher,
instead of the claimed hyperlinked index and its associated
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007