Appeal No. 2002-1687
Application No. 09/188,712
on-line user interaction to perform analysis that can be tailored as the user may dictate
during the interactive session. We agree with the Appellants that the Peters teaching of
providing elements that permit establishing a data link over which information can be
transferred does not read on Appellants’ claimed on-line analytical processing as
recited in Appellants’ claims. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 5, 7 through 11, 14 through 18, 20, 21, 26 through 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters.
In regard to the rejection of claims 2 through 4, 12, 13 and 22 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters and Brockman, we
find that the Examiner has relied on Peters for teaching, on-line analytical processing as
recited in these claims. Similarly, for the rejection of claims 6, 25, 29 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Peters and Malloy, we find
that the Examiner has also relied on Peters for the teaching of “on-line analytical
processing” and required by these claims as well. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007