Appeal No. 2003-1986
Application 09/315,200
therefore, it must be a meta-data attribute (EA12). The examiner
finds that attributes, such as "Object Type
Name=ACME::VIDEOMAIL," "Object Type Version," "Compression
Type=MPEG," and "Resolution=300 dpi" in Table 7, correspond to
meta-data attributes associated with "Object Type #1" and are
used to manage "Object Type #1" (EA13).
Appellant anticipated and addressed the examiner's position
in the brief. Appellant argues that Thomas fails to show a
method that: (1) associates at least one meta-data attribute with
a true-data attribute; (2) stores the associated meta-data
attribute in the profile object; and/or (3) manages the true-data
attribute according to the associated meta-data attribute (Br5).
It is argued that "[o]bject-type search parameters, the alleged
meta-data, are not used to manage other data in Table 4, but
instead are used to manage 'actual executables and libraries'
outside the Table 4" (Br7) and "there is no evidence that
meta-data attributes in a table are being used to manage a
true-data attribute in that same table" (emphasis omitted) (Br7).
It is argued that "if we are to characterize the 'search
parameters' and 'executable information' as meta-data, that
meta-data is not used to manage anything in the repository
itself, but instead to manage some other object that may or may
not even be executed on the same computer" (Br7). Appellant
argues that "[w]hat is missing from Thomas is any indication of
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007