Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
With respect to claims 124 and 125, the examiner has rejected the claims based
upon a lack of antecedent basis for “the segment.” (See answer at page 4.) We
disagree with the examiner and find that the preamble provides a proper antecedent
basis by reciting “for each of a plurality of fixed length segments in the data file, the
steps of . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Since “the segment” in steps (a) and (b) refer to each
segment, we find that a proper antecedent basis is recited in the preamble, and we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 124 and 125 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph.
35 USC §§ 102 and 103
We note that appellant has provided a grouping of the claims and a summary
description of the claimed subject matter at page 6 of the brief. We will address the
rejection using this grouping as a guide because of the noted difficulty we have in
determining which claims the examiner has rejected and under what statutory basis and
references which will be noted below.
Appellant argues that Metzner does not describe a structure having two
mathematical representations for each of a number of fixed length segments in a file.
(See brief at page 14.) Appellant argues that Metzner teaches only a single
representation of each of a number of equal length pages. (See brief at page 14.) We
agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that each level or layer in Metzner is a
new representation of the bottom string, that each segment of fixed length within each
layer, that exclusive-or and polynomial representation are disclosed and that the bottom
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007