Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
corresponding to said listed subset against business logic rules encoded in
said each listed subset;
the step of locating the listed subset is adapted to locate the selected
listing of said corresponding subset of executable rules in the repository;
the method further comprising the steps of:
determining a category of the transaction order;
selecting, from said listings of said plurality of subsets, a listing
of a subset corresponding to said determined category;
causing the selected listing of said corresponding subset of
executable rules to test said data items against business logic rules encoded
in said selected listing; and
indicating whether said data items conform to said business
logic rules.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kogan 6,820,069 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
(filed Jun. 16, 2000)
Serrano-Morales (Morales) 6,865,566 B2 Mar. 08, 2005
(filed May 09, 2001)
Group I: The Examiner rejected claims 3,4, 8-9, 13-14, 17-20, 23, 25-28,
31, 33-36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for being anticipated by
Morales.
Group II: The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 29, 30, 37 and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Morales.
Group III: The Examiner rejected claims 5, 10, 15, 16, 24 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Morales in view of Kogan.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Morales, or rendered obvious by Morales alone, or in combination with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013