Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)).
The examiner contends that Boudrie discloses the claimed
subject matter but for a teaching of “logging of transactions in
order to determine their effect” (answer, page 4). The examiner
then turns to Sherman for a teaching of “logging is more
efficient than the ‘interrogates’ of Boudrie” (answer, page 4)
and concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the
logging of transactions in order to determine their effect”
(answer, page 4).
Appellant argues that Boudrie only provides information on
the allocation of various databases among different storage
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007