Ex Parte Feng - Page 4


                Appeal 2007-1505                                                                              
                Application 10/279,481                                                                        

                                    THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS                                                 
                      Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                   
                as unpatentable over Costello in view of Sarkar.                                              
                      Claims 2 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                           
                unpatentable over Costello in view of Sarkar and Su.                                          
                      Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over                   
                Costello in view of Sarkar, Su, and Ripley.                                                   
                      Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable                       
                over Su in view of Clewis.                                                                    

                                              CONTENTIONS                                                     
                   Claims 1 through 9, 16, and 17.                                                            
                      Appellant’s arguments group independent claims 1 and 16 together.                       
                Brief, p. 8.  Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claims 1 and                 
                16 is improper as Costello does not teach a plurality of schema                               
                manipulations “the schema manipulation operations including operations of                     
                the group including: inserting a schema segment, deleting a schema segment,                   
                replacing a schema segment.”  Brief p. 10.   Appellant asserts on page 2 of                   
                the Reply Brief that this limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar                  
                limitation of independent claim 16, is not written in the alternative.  Rather,               
                Appellant asserts that claims 1 and 16 require “multiple of the stated                        
                operations – inserting, deleting, replacing.”  Reply Brief, p. 3.                             
                      Appellant also argues that the combination of Costello and Sarkar                       
                does not teach or suggest the limitation of “validating the plurality of                      
                schema manipulation.”                                                                         

                                                      4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013