Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
6. With regard to claims 20, 28 and 36, Appellants contend that Morales
fails to teach “analyzing the execution result, said analyzing
determining whether to execute a remaining unexecuted executable
rule file of the subset of executable rules files.” Examiner points us to
Figure 8 of Morales, especially to the logic diagram including
decision block 824, and the executed and unexecuted rules that are
followed or not, based on the decision. We find that these branched
instructions anticipate the claimed limitations.
7. With regard to claims 23, 31 and 39, Appellants contend that Morales
does not anticipate the limitation “the execution result to a requesting
application that submitted a request to check conformance of the at
least one data item to the at least one business logic rule.” Examiner,
in his Answer, points to sections in Morales (col. 8, ll. 42-52) in
which a banner containing advertising is shown or not, in accordance
with business rules that act depending on “receipt of form data by a
web server.” We agree with the Examiner that the reference
anticipates this indicated limitation of the claims.
Group II: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 21, 22, 29, 30,
37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Morales:
1. Appellants argue that the reference Morales does not teach that the
rule engine is created from compiled code. (Br. 14) He indicates that
programs may be compiled or interpreted, as both are within the prior
art. (Br. 15).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013