Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-18,
2 20, 25-36, 38, 40, and 42, but we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under
3 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Parthesarathy.
4
5 Claims 2, 37, 39, and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
6 Parthesarathy and Bradford.
7 From the above Findings of Fact, we must conclude that
8 • There is motivation to combine the art applied (FF28).
9 The Appellants look to very specific portions of Bradford in their contention
10 regarding a lack of motivation to combine (Br. 16-17). However, Bradford teaches
11 mechanisms to refine queries such as those posed by Parthesarathy. The
12 Appellants contend that Bradford discloses data queries and that Parthesarathy
13 only queries whether to load an update (Br. 16). But any query inherently is a
14 request for data, the fact that Parthesarathy goes further and acts upon the data that
15 is returned from its query does not negate the data that is implicitly returned for
16 that action to take place upon. Whether the data is returned from a database or
17 from data entry is an implementation detail. Bradford suggests that queries in
18 general may need varying levels of specificity. Certainly, the level of query
19 complexity of Parthesarathy Fig. 3 would suggest such a need.
20 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 37, 39, and 41
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parthesarathy and Bradford.
22
23 Claims 6, 13, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
24 Parthesarathy and Kroening.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013