Appeal 2007-1505
Application 10/279,481
apparatus) which includes operations to perform inserting, deleting, and
replacing schema segments.
As discussed in our findings of fact, Costello identifies that schemas
may be evolved by adding, deleting or restructuring the schema. However,
Costello focuses on generating schema to be of open format (adding
features) and does not discuss how a computer implemented method of
evolving schema using the delete and restructuring elements would be
performed. Further, we were unable to find that Costello teaches validating
the schema manipulations. Similarly, as discussed above, in our findings of
fact, we were unable to find that Sarkar teaches validating schema
manipulations based upon a determination of whether one set of valid XML
documents of one schema contain all of the valid XML documents of
another schema.
Accordingly, we are unable to find that the combination of Costello
and Sarkar teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16. On
this record, we have no independent basis for knowing that the subject
matter of the missing limitations is known in the art. Thus, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Costello in view of Sarkar.
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2 through 5 and 8 over
Costello and Sarkar in combination with Su and Ripley. The Examiner
relies upon these references to teach features claimed in the dependent
claims. The Examiner has not satisfactorily established that either Su or
Ripley teach or suggest the claimed group of schema manipulations or the
step of validating. We note, as discussed in our findings of fact, Su teaches
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013