Appeal No. 2004-1702
Application 09/182,745
The examiner finds that Syeda does not disclose limiting access
to preselected media files, but finds that Gill discloses
limiting access to preselected media files based on user access
privileges (R4). The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to combine Gill into Syeda since the combination would
enhance the security of data repositories (R4-5).
Appellants argue that claim 1 is for an object-oriented
programming interface for use by a programmer and claim 16 is a
method for assembling an Interactive Multimedia Application
(IMA), where the IMA actually interfaces with a database (Br9).
It is argued that Syeda teaches an application for accessing
various databases, but "Syeda does not teach a method for
assembling an application for accessing various databases" (Br9).
It is noted that the examiner finds that Syeda teaches an
application for accessing a database and also teaches assembling
an Interactive Media Application (IMA) which interfaces with a
database, at column 5, line 20 to column 6, line 42, and the
examiner reproduces the referenced paragraph of Syeda offering no
further explanation of how the claimed limitation reads on Syeda
(Br9-10).2 Appellants discuss each of the emphasized portions of
2 We note that appellants are apparently referring to the
final rejection (Paper No. 33) entered February 21, 2003, rather
than the rejection appealed from (Paper No. 36) entered
June 6, 2003, because the rejection of Paper No. 36 does not
quote from Syeda and states that Syeda teaches "assembling an
application," not "assembling an interactive multimedia
application" as in Paper No. 33. Nevertheless, the examiner's
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007