Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 3 and 17, the examiner adds Reiter to
IBM and Colby. Reiter is used to show a “dependency graph,” as
recited in claim 3. Appellants argue that that dependency graph
is not used to “ascertain” the members of the “superset” and that
the examiner has not shown that this “ascertainment” is of
dependency “between the view containing the target view tuple and
the base data.”
We agree with appellants as to the limitations of claims 3
and 17. While Reiter does, indeed, disclose a “dependency
graph,” we find no reason for the artisan to have combined this
teaching of Reiter with anything in IBM to result in ascertaining
members of a superset by the use of a dependency graph between
the view containing the target view tuple and the base data.
The rationale for the combination stated by the examiner, to
wit, “because of Reiter’s taught advantage of a dependency graphs
(sic), providing IBM a way to ascertain related tuple
collections,” is unconvincing. We find no evidence that would
have led the artisan to conclude that there was any advantage in
applying a dependency graph in IBM nor is it clear to us why or
how the artisan would have applied such a dependency graph in
-13–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007