Appeal No. 2004-1365
Application No. 09/139,808
8 form to be programmable functional expressions2 as Ho teaches that the
selections made in these interfaces are a function used to define how the object
will be displayed to the end user. See for example, column 6 lines 51-58, which
describes that when style number 3 is selected, only a list of choices (defined in
section 226) are displayed. Nonetheless, claim 11 includes the step of parsing
the functional expression; independent claims 54 and 62 contain similar
limitation. As addressed supra, the examiner relies upon figures 2-6 and 9 to
depict the step of parsing. The claimed step of parsing operates on the
functional expression. As stated supra we find the interface shown in figures 7
and 8 and the functions selected with these interfaces to meet the claimed form
and functional expressions, not the form of figures 4-6 and 9. We do not find that
Ho teaches parsing the functions selected by the interface shown in figures 7 and
8. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through
13, 18, 22, 54 through 57, 59, 62 through 65 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
On page 15 of the brief appellant argues that the rejection of claims 19, 58
and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are improper for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
2 Appellant’s specification, page 2, provides the following definition of functional
expression: “functional expression may be a function, an operator, a database
column name, a variable, and/or a constant.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007