Appeal 2007-2116
Application 10/318,000
cannot meet the receiving, comparing, and generating steps of claim 1, since
all require the initial step of receiving a first client listing of object classes.
(Appeal Br. 11-12.)
The Examiner, in response, explains why each of the receiving,
comparing, and generating steps of claim 1 are deemed to be met by
Freeman. (Answer 12-15.) In the Examiner’s view, Freeman’s multiple
references to defining “schema” means that “object classes” are necessarily
contained within the schema. The Examiner, in support, refers to the
Specification definition of “schema.” (Id. 13). “Schema are collections of
attribute type definitions, object class definitions and other information
which a server uses to determine how to match a filter or attribute value
assertion (in a compare operation) against the attributes of an entry, and
whether to permit add and modify operations.” (Specification 1: 21-26.)
Appellants respond to the Examiner’s position in the Answer by, in
essence, proposing to rewrite “and other information” in the above-quoted
definition in the Specification to “or other information.” Although
acknowledging the Specification definition with regard to what constitutes a
“schema,” Appellants submit that “while a schema can include object class
information, it can include or contain other significant types of elements as
well, such as attributes. In fact, in the cited section of Freeman at col. 17,
lines 25-43, an attribute is the only example of schema content that is
given.” (Reply Br. 4.)
However, anticipation is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The reference
need not expressly set out all the elements of a schema to anticipate.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013