Appeal 2007-2171
Application 09/821,066
whereby these definitions are stored on the Distributor Collaboratory
Server.
The Attorney argues that Sheer [sic] does not disclose defining
a first table identifying a plurality of parts, defining a second table,
associated with the first table, indicating functional relationships
between the parts, and recursively searching the first and second
tables to generate a list of interchangeable parts.
The Examiner notes, Sheer [sic] does disclose a system that is
implemented using a high degree of table-driven and parameter driven
software engineering techniques (Sheer [sic]: paragraph 0174).
8. The Appeal Brief does not address this response set forth in the Final
Rejection and therefore does not traverse the findings set forth therein.
9. The Appeal Brief does not address the disclosure in paragraph 0171
and Fig. 8 of Scheer that the Examiner relied upon to show that the subject
matters of claims 1, 6, and 13 are described in Scheer.
10. Fig. 8 of Scheer explicitly describes a “Data Base.”
11. The Appeal Brief does not address the disclosure in paragraphs 0174
and 0233 and Fig. 7 of Scheer that the Examiner relied upon to show that the
subject matter of claim 3 is described in Scheer.
12. Paragraph 0174 of Scheer explicitly describes inventory managing
processes “using a high degree of table-driven and parameter driven
software engineering techniques.”
13. The Examiner responded to the arguments made in the Brief by
arguing essentially the points made in the Final Rejection is response to the
rebuttal argument presented in Appellant’s response to the Office action
mailed October 23. (See above at FF 7.)(Answer 7.)
14. The Reply Brief responded as follows:
The Examiner has failed to prove a case of anticipation under
�102(e). Despite all the Examiner's allegations, the Examiner's burden
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013