Appeal 2007-1235
Application 09/748,125
translation to a tracking database] and cites figure 9 and page 8 of Ricker.”
Appeal Br. 6. However, we can find no indication in the record that the
Examiner found Ricker to show capturing error data. Instead, the Examiner
relied on Figure 9 of Ricker to show a translator receiving an inbound
document from a trading partner and translating it from a source format to a
compliant target format. Furthermore, the Examiner conceded that Ricker
“fails to specifically disclose … [c]apturing data errors to a database.”
Answer 4.
3. Rather than stating that Ricker discloses capturing error data, the
Examiner stated that Ricker’s “process of validating the document inherently
detects errors if the document is not ‛well-formed.’” Answer 14. Appellants
do not traverse this finding. Appeal Br. 6-7 and Reply Br. 1-2.
4. The Examiner found that
Puckett discloses:
• Capturing data errors to a database (column 2, lines 60-67).
Answer 4.
5. Appellants do not traverse the Examiner’s finding that Puckett teaches
capturing error data in a database. Appeal Br. 6-7.
6. Appellants dispute the relevance of Puckett, arguing that Puckett
relates to a translator that translates low level error data (for example,
binary records) stored in an error database to a more intelligible form
and correlates higher level queries to the lower level error data stored
in the error log database 168.. The error data stored in the error log
database is derived from system log files in a mass storage system.
See col. 2, lines 17-20 and col. 3, lines 4-12 of Puckett.
Appeal Br. 6. Puckett’s relevance is disputed on the grounds that “the error
processing in Puckett has nothing to do with the (1) claimed capturing of
translator error data in a tracking database that represents errors in inbound
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013