Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey.
2. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey in view of Sybase.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because it is the broadest independent
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that an artisan would not have been motivated to
modify Wookey to use a diagnostic test as a query relating to an attribute
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013