Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 11
Application No. 10/768,827
the declarations for the external routines [col. 7, lines 61-63]. We note that
the examiner corresponds the claimed responses with Bodamer’s substitute
routines that are generated for purposes of debugging [answer, page 18;
see also Bodamer at col. 7, lines 58-67 and col. 8, lines 8-67]. We further
note that Bodamer’s exemplary software system 200 is implemented as a
relational database system and base software module 202 (i.e., database
server 202) is implemented as a relational database server [col. 5, lines 55-
58]. Therefore, we find that the claimed “data source” broadly reads upon
the database system disclosed by Bodamer [claim 1]. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 for essentially the
same reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer.
We note that claims 13, 14, 15, 24 and 25 fall with independent claim
1 since appellant has not separately argued the patentability of these claims.
See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987). See also 37 C.F.R.§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Accordingly, we will also
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, 15, 24 and 25 for the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection.
III. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claim 26 as being
anticipated by McLain.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007