Appeal No. 2006-2509
Application No. 10/001,431
tables illustrating policies (Figs. 5A and 5B) may be implemented in a relational
database.
Appellants describe an interpreter 202 (Fig. 3) that reads VDL file 200, parses
the descriptions, and organizes them into tables in a configuration database 204.
(Spec. at 8-9.) With respect to the database described by Chefalas, information
generated by human beings may be entered into a relational database by a machine
reading a file prepared by a human being, or by a human being entering data at a
terminal. Instant claim 17 is sufficiently broad to read on either method; e.g., a human
being reading a file and entering the information into a data terminal, with the database
program parsing the information and organizing the information pursuant to the
predetermined format of the database design. The artisan would appreciate that
Chefalas describes a system within the scope of claim 17, even without the reference
expressing the details of how information gets from human beings into a relational
database. “A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such
that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of
the particular art and be in possession of the invention.’” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929,
936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962)).
We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in response to the rejection of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007