Appeal No. 2002-0275
Application No. 09/215,752
teaches a Meta Data Service (Answer at 4). We do not sustain the rejection of claim
10.
Appellants provide no separate arguments for claims 18, 24, 27, 28, 32, or 33,
and have not shown the rejection to be in error. We sustain the rejection of claims 18,
24, 27, 28, 32, and 33.
With respect to claims 29 and 34, appellants argue (Brief at 10-11) that
Maruyama teaches an object-oriented database system, and that the “relation definition”
that the rejection cites in the reference does not teach a relational database. We agree
with appellants’ assessment. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 29 or 34.
With respect to claim 37, appellants appear to rely (Brief at 8) on limitations from
independent claims, but do submit that in Maruyama there is no need to determine the
object type. We find that Maruyama teaches determining the object type at column 9,
lines 37 through 43, where the user designates an object identifier of a type definition
object to the object manager. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 37.
Finally, with respect to claim 40, appellants argue (Brief at 8-9) there is no need
for a Meta Data Service in Maruyama because the reference does not teach or suggest
applications in a network for receiving or transmitting attribute value data in a “soft
format.” Appellants have not explained why a Meta Data Service relates to a “soft
format,” have not explained why the reference is not considered to disclose a “soft
format,” and, more important, have not explained how the claim might require the
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007