Appeal No. 2004-0591
Application No. 09/195,362
Appellants’ invention relates to a rule processing system with external application
integration. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A rule processing system, comprising:
a rule engine;
a rule graph operatively coupled to the rule engine and containing
at least one rule;
a browser coupled to the rule graph to allow access to the at least
one rule; and
at least one application interface to operatively couple a respective
at least one external application to the rule engine and the rule graph,
wherein the operation of the at least one external application is based on
said at least one rule and said at least one external application is capable
of modifying said at least one rule.
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Chatterjee et al. (Chatterjee) 5,774,661 Jun. 30, 1998
Huckins 6,038,593 Mar. 14, 2000
(Filed Dec. 30, 1996)
Du et al. (Du) 6,041,306 Mar. 21, 2000
(Filed Mar. 21, 1997)
Claims 22-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Du.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chatterjee in view of Du. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007