Appeal No. 2002-0275
Application No. 09/215,752
In response to the section 102 rejection of claims 35, 42, and 46, appellants
argue that Maruyama cannot anticipate the claims because the reference “is concerned
only with an object-oriented database and not the manner in which objects are
processed in a distributed data processing system.” (Brief at 6 and 8.) The examiner
points out that a “distributed data processing system” is not claimed. (Answer at 7.)
The difference between representative claim 35 and the previous group of claims
(e.g., claim 7) is that claim 35 recites “processing the data object according to attributes
in the meta definition of the data object to form a second data value stream for the data
object,” rather than mapping data values to a data structure. Since we agree with the
examiner that a “data value stream” as broadly claimed is no different from values
passed between software components, and passing of values between software
components occurs during the restructuring of the database described in column 9 of
Maruyama, appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection. We
sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 35, 42, and 46 over Maruyama.
Section 102 rejection -- dependent claims 2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 20, 24-34, 37, 40
As previously noted, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 14, 20, 25, 26,
30, or 31, because the claims depend from independent claims 1, 13, or 19.
In view of the subject matter of claim 10, the rejection thereof under section 102
is in error. With respect to that particular claim, it is irrelevant whether Maruyama
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007