Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
argument that there is no motivation to modify Wookey in the manner
suggested by the Examiner (Br. 8). We have fully addressed Appellants’
arguments regarding motivation (see claim 1 discussion supra). With
respect to Appellants’ argument that Wookey does not teach or suggest
receiving a request from a client and querying a system as specified by that
request, we have also fully addressed these limitations with respect to claim
1. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
4 as being unpatentable over Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra
with respect to independent claim 1.
Claim 8
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey. Appellants restate their
argument that there is no motivation to modify Wookey in the manner
suggested by the Examiner (Br. 11). We have fully addressed Appellants’
arguments regarding motivation supra. Appellants further argue that
Wookey does not teach or suggest “wherein said information specifying a
query for said system attribute comprises multiple transactions bracketed
together,” as claimed (id.). Appellants acknowledge that the passage of
Wookey relied upon by the Examiner teaches a variety of possible operators
to define alerts (col. 15, ll. 24-54). Nevertheless, Appellants maintain that
Wookey does not teach where any of the operators can be bracketed
together (Br. 11).
We disagree. We find Wookey teaches set operators that necessarily
require multiple (i.e., bracketed) transactions, e.g., see the “UNION,”
“INTERSECTION,” and “DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 SETS” operators
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013