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