Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 REFERENCES
2 The references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
3 appeal are as follows:
4 Thuraisingham US 5,481,700 Jan. 2, 1996
5 Knutson US 5,870,746 Feb. 9, 1999
6 Saxe US 6,343,376 B1 Jan. 29, 2002
7 Watters US 6,490,718 B1 Dec. 3, 2002
8 Ku US 6,532,471 B1 Mar. 11, 2003
9
10 James Bailey, An-Event-Condition-Action Language for XML,
11 (May 7-11, 2002), available at
12 http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~jbailey/papers/www2002.ps.
13
14 The following rejections are before us for review:
15 (a) Claims 1, 2, 5-16, 18, 21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
16 § 102(e) as being anticipated by Knutson;
17 (b) Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
18 unpatentable over Knutson in view of Bailey;
19 (c) Claims 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
20 unpatentable over Knutson in view of Ku;
21 (d) Claims 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
22 being unpatentable over Knutson in view of Thuraisingham; and
23 (e) Claims 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
24 unpatentable over Knutson in view of Watters and further in view of Saxe.
25 Throughout our opinion, we shall make references to Appellants’
26 Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed on March 6, 2006, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
27 filed on July 19, 2006, and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer”) mailed on
28 May 19, 2006, for the respective details thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013