Appeal No. 2002-0561
Application No. 09/410,531
Appellant argues (brief, page 4) that “clustering records
together in separate sub-tables for parallel scans, however, is not
the same as reducing the data in bulk by reducing the number of
columns or rows in the data, and then operating on the reduced data
to find clusters therein.”
We agree with appellant’s argument. Nothing in the record
supports the examiner’s conclusion that splitting the search tables
in McElhiney would have led the skilled artisan to the disclosed
and claimed reduction of data in the relational database by
“reducing the number of columns or rows in the data.” According to
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002), the examiner’s conclusory statements in the rejection must
be supported by evidence of record. To date, the examiner has not
provided any evidence to support the conclusion reached in the
rejection. As a result thereof, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 36 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007