Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1-53 are grouped to stand or fall together. Claim 1
is analyzed as representative.
The examiner's final rejection reads the limitations of
claim 1 generally on column 3, lines 20-30, column 15, lines 5-35
and Table 4, and column 34, Table 7 (FR2-3), but does not
specifically point to elements in Thomas that correspond to the
claimed "true-data attribute" and "meta-data attribute"
associated with the true-data attribute. The examiner's position
is best explained in the response to the arguments section of the
answer. The examiner finds that Table 4 of Thomas discloses a
profile object that contains true-data attributes and meta-data
attributes associated with the true-data attributes where the
meta-data attributes can be used to manage the true-data
attributes (EA11). The examiner finds that "Object Type #1"
corresponds to a true-data attribute and the indented search
parameters, such as "Object Type Name," "Object Type Version,"
"Last Update Time," etc., correspond to meta-data attributes
associated with "Object Type #1" (EA11). The examiner notes that
the "Last Update Time" in Table 4 of Thomas corresponds to the
meta-data attribute "type=upd_98409245" for last update timestamp
in appellant's Fig. 5A (see also specification at page 22) and,
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007