Appeal No. 2005-0742
Application No. 10/274,579
dependent claims 12 and 13. Finally, claim 15 stands rejected on
the basis of Shasha in view of Tanaka, further in view of
Romanovsky.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
Essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants in the
brief, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 on
appeal in light of the collective teachings and suggestions of
Shasha in view of Tanaka. As such, we reverse the rejection of
the other dependent claims in the first stated rejection and,
consequently, the second through fourth stated rejections.
As indicated at the top of page 5 of the principal brief on
appeal, appellants have assumed for the sake of argument that the
examiner’s characterizations of Shasha as disclosing the feature
in the body of representative claim 1 on appeal of displaying a
representation of the evaluation status of one attribute as well
as the separately recited feature of displaying the
representation of the evaluation status for each of the plurality
of computation rules are correct. We agree. The arguments
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007