Appeal No. 2000-0240
Application No. 08/285,534
Appellants argue at great length that examiner has not pointed out where in the
references specific teachings are found and that appellants “have not been able to find
where Weinreb discloses the features” of the claims. (See brief at page 18 et seq.)
While we agree with appellants that the examiner’s explanation of Weinreb with respect to
the claim language is brief, it is our opinion that the examiner’s position was clear. From
our review of Weinreb and the examiner’s rejection and arguments, the examiner was
equating the generic databases of the claims with the tables/databases used in address
manipulation or mapping. The examiner maintains that the table location searching means
reads on the use of the persistent relocation map and virtual address relocation map of
Weinreb to locate data in one of the plurality of physical databases in response to an
application program’s request for data using a virtual address as the logical identifier of
the data. (See final rejection at page 2.) We agree with the examiner. Again, throughout
the reply brief, Appellants argue that the examiner has not specifically pointed out where
each and every facet of the claimed invention is found in the references and that the Board
and appellants are left to speculate as to the application of the prior art. (See reply
brief at page 5 et seq.) We disagree with appellants broad sweeping assertion.
Appellants appear to argue without
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007