Appeal No. 2003-1873
Application 09/281,420
We have reviewed claim 24 and find that Appellants’ arguments
are not commensurate in scope with claim 24. Claim 24 contains
none of the limitations argued by Appellants. Rather, we find
that claim 24 is directed to a “request structure” (a data
structure) that comprises “a query” and “a merge function code
for use in merging responses to said query.” The remainder of
claim 24 recites intended uses of the request structure or its
two components. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed
invention must result in a structural difference between the
claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably
distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the
prior art data structure is capable of performing the intended
use, then it meets the claim.
We note that the language of claim 24 places no limitation on
how the “merge function code” is implemented in relation to the
“query.” While the claim requires that the query portion of the
request structure be of a form that can be communicated in a
distributed network environment, no such limitation is placed on
the merge function code. Rather, the “merge function code” could
be communicated with the query or the “request structure” could
be such that the “merge function code” resides at a fixed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007