Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 Appellants contend that neither Knutson, Watters nor Saxe,
2 individually and/or in combination, teach or suggest all the novel aspects of
3 Appellants’ claimed invention. (Br. 10:1-2). Appellants further contend that
4 the Examiner is relying on contextually disjunctive and logically unrelated
5 passages. (Br. 10:22-26).
6 Upon reviewing the lengthy disclosure of Knutson, it is our view that
7 Knutson indeed discloses user-defined preferences (i.e., condition, actions)
8 (FF 7-10) with respect to one or more named product groups (i.e., groups of
9 data) (FF 19) being defined in terms of if-then statements (FF 17). Knutson
10 further discloses that intelligent middleware translates such preferences by
11 reading schema from the data warehouse and using SQL (FF 20).
12 Furthermore, Knutson discloses that events in the data can be specified and
13 used to trigger an alert (FF 18, 21).
14 In addition, the Examiner found that Watters teaches the use of named
15 groups of data (Answer 14) and that Saxe teaches the use of conditionally
16 valid preferences (Answer 15). Regarding the secondary documents,
17 Appellants merely argue that neither reference makes up for the deficiencies
18 of Knutson (Br. 11). As a result, Appellants fail to address the rationale and
19 merits of the secondary references and, so, does not rebut the prima facie
20 case.
21 In view of the above discussion, it is our view that since Knutson
22 reasonably teaches writing user preferences with respect to one or more
23 named groups of data in accordance with a developer schema and executing
24 user preferences in response to an event, the prior art (Knutson, Watters and
25 Saxe) describe all the elements necessary for a proper rejection under
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013