Appeal No. 2006-1592
Application No. 09/757,431
art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings
of Ponnekanti with the teachings of Edwards so as to have a
callback to the calling program in order to return the record
associated with index key value (col. 7, lines 10-18).”
The appellants argue (brief, pages 5 through 8) that Edwards
neither teaches nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art “issuing a callback to the data manager,” and
“Ponnekanti in view of Edwards fails to teach or suggest
‘continuing to carry out an index-data fetch for another data
identifier if . . . the index manager receives a specific
condition from the data manager in response to the callback,’ as
recited in claims 1 and 8.”
Edwards describes a call at column 5, lines 28 through 33,
but the call is made between several component parts (i.e., 201
and 202) of the multilayer relational database management system
(RDMS) 200 (figure 2). Edwards describes a calling program at
column 7, lines 10 through 18, but the call is still made between
several components parts (i.e., 204 and 206) of the RDMS 200. In
other words, Edwards makes a call within the database management
system and neither teaches nor would have suggested “issuing a
callback to the data manager.” Edwards is silent as to the index
manager performing any action as a result of the calls made
within the component parts of the RDMS 200. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 14, 56 and 57 is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007