Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
Appellants believe that the Examiner is equating the rules 128 with
the rules 828. We do not find this argument convincing in eliminating
Morales as a reference, as Morales does show the claimed storage of
the executable rules.
4. Appellants further contend that Morales does not teach the features 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.” Examiner refers to Figure 8 of Morales,
indicating that the patent teaches “a group of templates that define
rules executed as part of the task. This example clearly divides rules
128 into groups or classes,” namely those related to the task and all
others. The Examiner reads the selection of the subset related to the
task as the claimed selecting a subset corresponding to said
determined category. We find this reading of the reference accurate to
anticipate the limitation in the claims.
5. Appellants further contend that Morales does not teach that the source
code is compiled (Br. 14), and that a fair reading of Morales would
encompass his converting the source code to executable code by using
an interpreter rather than a compiler as claimed, for example in claim
18. We note, however, in Morales, column 4, lines 60 ff, “Rules
written in SRL may be transformed, e.g., compiled, into another form,
e.g. code that is executable by a rules engine.” (emphasis added). We
thus find Appellants’ contention not persuasive, as Morales explicitly
teaches compiling source code.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013