Appeal No. 2004-2245
Application No. 10/145,544
use of file headers (column 5, lines 34-37), and concludes that
it would have been obvious to combine Shaughnessy with the
Hull/Judd combination, since they all “teach the use of databases
with tables, the use of indexes, the use of queries, and the
retrieving of data” (answer-page 5).
The examiner recognizes that the Hull/Judd/Shaughnessy
combination does not teach the use of in-memory database tables,
but turns to Pereira for such a teaching at column 9,
lines 60-66, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
make the combination with the other references since they all
“teach the use of databases with tables, the use of indexes, and
the retrieving of data” (answer-page 6).
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including, inter
alia, the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we
conclude therefrom that the examiner has not presented a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 52-
60, and 76-81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
While the number of references applied in a rejection may,
theoretically, be infinite, if applied in a proper manner, the
examiner’s use of four references in the instant rejection of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007