Appeal 2007-1505
Application 10/279,481
other. Rather, Su’s system is used to generate documents in the target
schema from documents in the first schema using the transformation
function. Further, the Examiner did not find, nor are we able to find, that
Clewis teaches or suggests modifying a system such as Su’s to compare
documents of two schemas. Thus, we were we not able to find that the
combination of Su and Clewis teaches or suggests all of the limitations of
claim 11 and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
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.
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred because the
combination of Costello and Sarkar does not provide a reason for validating
the schema manipulations as claimed in claims 1 and 16.
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred because the
combination of Su and Clewis does not teach the claim 11 feature of
“determining whether a first set of XML documents contains a second set of
XML documents.”
On this record, claims 1 through 9, 11, 16, and 17 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
For the forgoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 9, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013