Appeal No. 2005-0742
Application No. 10/274,579
a rule is unexecutable because of a condition of a negation not
being satisfied. The invention of Tanaka is therefore to display
what has not traditionally been displayed to the user.
Even in the context of Tanaka, we do not see the correlation
of this reference displaying a representation of a combining
policy, whereas the examiner even admits that the reference to
Tanaka only displays a combination of a rule and a fact in figure
7. The rule in Tanaka’s environment would appear to correspond
to the computation rules of representative claim 1 on appeal
rather than any statement of a computation policy.
We also do not agree with the examiner’s assertions in the
paragraph bridging pages 14 and 15 in the responsive arguments
portion of the answer that Tanaka does teach that the so-called
CS or Beta is a combination of a plurality of executable rules
such as to imply that the display of a combining policy
defines a manner (as claimed) in which contributed data values
are combined in order to determine a final value of an attribute
as required from the quoted portion at the end of representative
claim 1 on appeal.
At best, the examiner’s reasoning and analysis and
correlation appear to be greatly strained. Therefore, we must
conclude that there are no teachings among the combination of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007