Appeal 2007-1505
Application 10/279,481
The Examiner construes claims 1 and 16 as reciting the elements of
inserting, deleting, and replacing in the alternative and states that the
rejection “only requires one of such operations to be present to meet the
claimed limitation.” Answer, p. 10. The Examiner agrees with the
Appellant’s assertion that Costello only teaches one schema manipulations,
the “<any>” element which allows inserting a schema segment.
Claim 11.
Appellant argues that Su does not teach the claim 11 feature of
“determining whether a first set of XML documents contains a second set of
XML documents.” Appellant asserts that Su teaches identifying structural
differences between two document type definitions and determines how to
transform the documents from one type to the other. Brief p. 23.
In response the Examiner states:
With respect to claim 11, the Appellant argues that Su fails to
disclose determining whether a first set of XML documents contains a
second set of XML documents (page 23). The examiner addressed this
argument with respect to claim 1, and the argument remains
applicable with respect to claim 11.
Answer, p. 13
ISSUES
The first issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred because independent claims 1 and 16 are limited to a schema
manipulation method wherein the group of schema manipulations includes
each of the three different manipulations, inserting, deleting, and replacing.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013