Appeal No. 2002-0653
Application No. 09/121,747
Claims 31, 38 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shaya in view Bertram.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 5), the briefs (paper numbers 10 and
12) and the answer (paper number 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse all of the
rejections of record.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection, the examiner contends (final rejection, page 3) that
Shaya discloses “means for dynamically storing a database model of the data content of said display
interface (See Shaya et al.’s col. 3, lines 34-37),” whereas appellants argue (brief, page 7) that:
. . . What the portions of the Shaya et al. reference cited by the Examiner
disclose is an actual or real database, the contents of which may be accessed and
displayed. However, Shaya et al. do not disclose a database model of the content of
the display.
In mathematical as well as in computer terminology, the term model is
understood to mean a representation or simulation of a real object. The present
specification clearly uses the term model in a manner consistent with this definition.
Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s arguments, in light of accepted definition of model
in the art, the claims should not be interpreted broadly so that the term, database
model will be read on all databases supporting displays.
We agree with appellants’ arguments supra and appellants’ arguments (reply brief, page 2)
that “the database in Shaya et al. is a database storing medical patient data which may be accessed
through the display interface . . . .” and “is not a database model of the content that makes up the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007