Appeal No. 2004-1890 7
Application No. 09/225,974
has not provided any explanation as to how Carey’s reference to “binding” corresponds to
the claimed specifying of binding rules, let alone binding rules that are defined in the
bindable data elements themselves as claimed.
Similarly, we find no disclosure in Suver, applied by the Examiner as allegedly
providing a teaching of the returning of bindable data elements as a result of a resource
query, of any specification of binding rules. To whatever extent Suver may disclose
bindable data elements, we simply find no teaching or suggestion of the specifying of
binding rules that are defined in the binding elements themselves as claimed.4
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11,
and 81, as well as claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-18, 63-75, 79, 80, 82-86, and 95-97 dependent
thereon, based on the combination of Carey and Suver is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 95-97 based on Carey alone we do not sustain this rejection as well. For the
reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has not provided any indication as to where the
claimed binding rule in the binding element specification feature is taught or suggested.
4 Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion at page 16 of the Answer that the claims do not contain the
“in the element” binding specification language, the appealed independent claims 1, 11, and 81, which are
the claims submitted in the amendment dated November 13, 2002, do in fact contain the language
“binding rules that are specified in the bindable data elements (claim 1), “binding rules specified in each of
the fragments and/or primitives” (claim 11), and (claim 81) “binding rules specified for and stored in the
bindable data elements.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007