Ex Parte SKEEN - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0319                                                        
          Application No. 09/206,663                                 Page 2           

          from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced as                 
          follows:                                                                    
               1. A computer-implemented real-time decision support system            
          comprising:                                                                 
               means for receiving complex queries posed by a plurality of            
          users;                                                                      
               means for providing for each of the queries an executable              
          query process furnishing a result when data sources satisfy                 
          constraints of the query;                                                   
               means for providing data sources, the data sources including           
          an event source;                                                            
               means for responding to an event furnished by an event                 
          source to initiate execution of all query processes having                  
          constraints satisfied by data sources; and                                  
               means for furnishing results of executed query processes to            
          users.                                                                      
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Risberg et al. (Risberg)        5,339,392         Aug. 16, 1994             
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being           
          anticipated by Risberg.                                                     
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,             
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed            
          August 14, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007