Appeal No. 2002-1756
Application No. 09/037,879
devices but does not provide any information on the internal data
definitions within the database. Appellant further argues that
Sherman discloses no more than what appellant admits as prior
art, i.e., log files for logging database changes and the use of
these log records for performing a “rollback” procedure. Thus,
according to appellant, neither of the applied references
discloses or suggests the regeneration of lost data definitions
from the log records in the data definition language so that the
database itself may be recreated, as is claimed by appellant.
This is more than a mere restoration of data as in the known
rollback instruction.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter.
While the examiner has cited various portions of the applied
references, it is not clear to us how these cited portions are
being applied to the specific claim limitations. For example,
the examiner cites column 4, lines 27-38 and Figure 7B of Boudrie
as evidence of “translating of the data definition information
into data definition instructions.” We find the word “translates”
in Figure 7B of the reference, but, other than that, we are
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007