Appeal No. 2003-1619
Application No. 09/442,888
that Herrmann teaches the claimed mapping the inputs to mapped
values and accepting the mapped values as inputs which together
with mapped values are programmably changeable, nor has provided
evidence that such features are inherent in the teachings of the
reference.
In view of the discussion above, we find that the Examiner
has failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie case of
anticipation with respect to claim 1 and claim 8, which recites
features similar to those of claim 1. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 12 and 13 over Herrmann
cannot be sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the
remaining claims, we note that the Examiner further relies on
Biegel for teaching commit and rollback policies (answer, page 6)
and on Thai for disclosing the use of boolean operators for
optimized filtering (answer, page 7). However, since the
Examiner has not pointed to any teachings in these two references
that may relate to the claimed mapping of the inputs and
accepting the mapped values, as recited in independent claims 1
and 8, the above discussed deficiencies of Herrmann has not been
overcome. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007