Appeal No. 1999-1557
Application 08/650,397
anticipating reference because Naito teaches a file system and
“file systems 'typically provide little or no support for
recovery and concurrency controls.'” Brief at page 5, lines
1-6. The Appellant further asserts that the Examiner has not
taken official notice of the equivalence of Naito’s file
system with a database system. Brief at page 5.
Appellant’s argument, at page 5, starting at line 24,
additionally states:
Naito . . . refers to a “master file” that
contains information . . . . In the
discussion of the master file . . . Naito
makes no reference to a "database" or to
"records" each of which has "a unique
Record Identification Key . . . . The
"backup file" . . . of Naito . . . does not
constitute a "redundant database system
means" or a "redundant database" . . . .
[T]hose terms have specific meanings in
claim 6 that are different from the backup
file . . . of Naito. The Examiner’s
statement that Naito’s system "does input
records and query them in a system . . ."
is unsupported by judicial notice, citation
of a reference, or reference to any part of
Naito’s disclosure . . . . Naito . . .
teaches a file backup system having a
master file that is capable of copying
contents of a down file while
simultaneously responding to requests and
controlling data transfers, without
stopping
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007