Appeal No. 2007-0332
Application No. 10/316,312
Independent claim 14 (Chipman)
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 as
being anticipated by Chipman.
Appellants argue that the data translator of Chipman does not translate
data extracted from the crawler (Br. 12).
We note that the Examiner’s response for claim 1 is also directed to
claim 14 (Answer 8).
We further note that the language of claim 14 also requires the step of
extracting to be performed before the step of translating. In particular, we
note the antecedent basis for “translate the data unit” is established by the
preceding step of “a crawler configured to extract at least one data unit from
the source data” (claim 14, emphasis added). Because the language of claim
14 requires the extracting step to be performed before the translating step,
the logic of the Examiner’s rejection fails to meet the language of the claim.
Therefore, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14
as being anticipated by Chipman for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to independent claim 1.
Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 14 as being anticipated by Chipman, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of any of the dependent claims under appeal.
Therefore, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-9,
and 15-21 as being anticipated by Chipman.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013