Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application No. 09/776,364
9 of the Answer that Gartner did not specifically disclose combining first
and second parameters to form a filename. It was recognized by the
Examiner and even recognized by Appellant in the Brief and Request for
Rehearing that at the bottom of column 5, Gartner did teach a first value
relating to a filename and a second value relating to the name of the
server/database system. Figure 2 essentially shows this and column 5, lines
41-54 indicates that an external file reference is based upon the name of a
server and the name of a file. Although this comes close to the broadly
defined “based on” relationship at the end of independent claim 1 on appeal
as well as the combining and in concatenating features of the other
independent claims on appeal, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
Fitting had more compelling teachings of this exact feature.
To the extent the artisan would not consider Gartner’s teachings as
being applicable implacable to plural test systems, the teaching value of
Fitting clearly would have caused the artisan to consider that the plural users
of Gartner obviously would have analogously encompassed the plural
systems of Fitting. It is remarkable how Appellant’s arguments in the Brief
and the Request for Rehearing appear to limit the teaching value of Fitting
such as to not even encompassed anything corresponding to what the
Examiner has said in the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the Answer,
with which we fully agreed in our previous Decision. As the Examiner
indicated at the bottom of page 10 of the Answer “Fitting does execute a
plurality of steps to combine the two parameters into a filename.”
Appellant asserted at the bottom of page 3 of the Request for
Rehearing with respect to independent claims 6, 14, 23, and 27 that we
overlooked Appellant’s arguments with respect to these claims and did not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013