Appeal No. 2006-1592
Application No. 09/757,431
of Edwards.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
14, 56 and 57.
Ponnekanti describes a method for processing a database
query on a set of data in a database management system having a
data manager and an index manager (column 1, lines 25 through 29
and column 4, lines 31 through 43). In response to a call to
locate a data identifier in an index corresponding to a selected
key value, the index manager locates the data identifier in the
index for the selected key value (column 15, lines 31 through 33
and column 16, lines 6 through 30).
The examiner and the appellants agree that Ponnekanti does
not describe “issuing a callback to the data manager” as required
by the claims on appeal (answer, page 5; brief, page 5).
According to the examiner (answer, page 5), “Edwards
discloses issuing the call to the calling program for index key
value in the searching index key (col. 7, lines 10-18 and col. 5,
lines 28-33).” The examiner concludes (answer, pages 5 and 6)
“it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007