Appeal No. 95-1998
Application No. 08/028,627
records are selected, there is no teaching or suggestion in
Tsuchida that the order in which comparisons are performed within
each individual record is affected in any way or that this would
be inherently so.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 10
under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as anticipated by Tsuchida.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103, we also will not sustain this rejection. The examiner
applies Tsuchida in the same manner as in the anticipation
rejection but now relies on Harrington for teaching the
rearranging of the order of received commands in order to select
a more efficient sequence of commands which optimize the overall
operation effect [answer-page 5]. The examiner takes the
position that the claimed comparison operations within a logical
expression, which the examiner still contends is taught by
Tsuchida, constitutes a “sequence of commands.” The examiner
then concludes that it would have been “obviousYto apply the
resequencing of commands in Harrington to the comparisons in
Tsuchida because Harrington… provide[s] the solution for the
problem recognized by TsuchidaYwhich would yield a better
optimized search and increase the throughput of the search
system” [answer-pages 5-6].
Harrington does, indeed, teach the rearranging of the
execution of commands, and appellant concedes this point at page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007