Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has
improperly combined Wookey with Sybase. We note that we have fully
addressed Appellants’ arguments regarding motivation to modify Wookey
(see discussion of claim 1 supra). In addition, we find the Examiner has
merely relied upon the Sybase reference as being exemplary of the
notoriously well known use of SQL (Structured Query Language). Indeed,
we note that Appellants’ own Specification expressly discloses SQL as
known prior art:
Also existing in the prior art are database query languages that
allow a user to specify a particular query, whereby the user can
be notified of a specified condition existing with the derived
data resulting from the specified query …. For instance, the
user may specify a query using Structured Query Language
(“SQL”) that results in derived data, such as whether a new
employee record has been added to the database. That is, the
result of such query is derived data about information contained
within the database.
(Specification, p. 6, ¶ 2).
With respect to specific limitations of claim 7, Appellants again argue
that Wookey does not teach or suggest receiving a request from a client and
querying a system as specified by the request (Br. 19). Because we have
found supra that Wookey teaches receiving a request from a client, and
querying the system as specified by the request, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Wookey for the
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claim 14
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 14 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey in view of Sybase.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013