Appeal No. 2003-1619
Application No. 09/442,888
(brief, page 5). Additionally, Appellants assert that instead of
transmitting an indicator of the outcome to participating
components, Herrmann teaches transmitting an indicator to a human
user via a network (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner mainly
relies on the database features disclosed in Herrmann and finds
various claimed elements to be inherent within the disclosed
database (answer, pages 9-12). In particular, the Examiner
relies on column 17, lines 29-45 of Herrmann for disclosing a
database table and on column 18, line 65 through column 19, line
4 for the mapping functionality and concludes that mapping data
tables are also routine in the computer art (answer, page 9).
With respect to the claimed accepting the mapped value, the
Examiner relies on Figures 1A-1C for showing databases and
mapping tables and again, finds it inherent to provide outputs by
application software and to process the value from the mapping
table in “some manner” (answer, page 11).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007