Appeal No. 2006-1497
Application No. 09/770,017
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 7, 10, 14, 22, 24 through 27 and 29.
Powers describes a database system in which the whole tree is represented by using
tables (column 2, lines 33 through 37; column 6, lines 17 and 18). Powers is concerned with
reducing the amount of storage space (Abstract), and one way to accomplish such a task is to get
rid of duplicative nodes (column 6, lines 3 through 16). The examiner’s contentions (answer,
pages 4 and 5) to the contrary notwithstanding, Powers never selects a sub-tree structure for
processing in the manner set forth in the claims on appeal.
Jeffries describes a method and apparatus for selecting a direct table and a plurality of
corresponding trees in a computer system (Figures 3, 4A and 5A; Abstract; column 4, lines 25
through 35; column 6, lines 10 through 14; column 10, lines 15 through 17). Jeffries, like
Powers, never selects a sub-tree structure for processing in the manner set forth in the claims on
appeal.
Accordingly, we agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 8 through 11; reply
brief, page 4) that Powers and Jeffries neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art selecting a sub-tree structure, and then determining whether predetermined
conditions have been met for replacing the sub-tree structure of a tree structure with an
equivalent table. In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 10, 14, 22, 24 through 27
and 29 is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007