Appeal No. 2000-0190
Application No. 08/784,224
above definitions to further evidence the use of indices, and we disagree with appellant
that the examiner has relied upon improper hindsight in reconstructing the claimed
invention.
Appellant argues that the examiner fails to appreciate the difference between an
index that identifies existing information as compared with status information that
indicates the availability of knowledge items. (See reply brief at page 4.) We disagree
with appellant, whereas if an item exists, then it would be available and that status
would be conveyed. Additionally, with respect to the accessing of the information the
location information would convey a status as to availability as discussed above.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that Oku does not disclose generating a request for knowledge
items if the status information indicates availability. (See brief at page 8.) We disagree
with appellant. Oku teaches that the client requests to the server and the server
submits a request for the search.
Appellant argues that Oku teaches away from using databases in its organization
activity management other than those constructed by the data modeling technique.
(See brief at page 8.) We disagree with appellant since appellant’s argument does not
address the examiner’s arguments. " 'A reference may be said to teach away when a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007