Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
15.) We agree with appellant, and find that the examiner only addresses this argument
with respect to the combination of Metzner and Queen at page 21 of the answer.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s alternative rejection of the above claims
under 35 USC § 103 over Metzner alone. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims in appellant’s groups 1, 2, 6, and 8-13 under 35 USC § 103 over Metzner alone.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103 over the combination of
Metzner and Queen, the examiner maintains that Metzner does not disclose generating
offsets of identical segments in the second file, but that Queen teaches generating
offsets of characters from a first file to a second file. From our review of Queen, we do
not agree with the examiner that Queen teaches “offsets” as recited in the claims.5
With respect to the use of offsets, appellant argues that the identity blocks of
Queen are not of a fixed length as with Metzner, but are of a variable length by first
generating anchorpoints and then expanding outwardly from the anchorpoints while
comparing the characters until different characters are found. (See brief at page 16.)
We agree with appellant. Appellant argues that in Metzner there is no need to store an
offset since the pages always begin at the same address and that Queen would have
provided no motivation to store location of offset due to fixed length segments and use
of the same start address. (See brief at page 17.) Appellant argues that therefore, the
5 Here, we note that the examiner has rejected claims 71-100, but has not rejected claim 69 from
which claim 71 depends and claim 69 defines the “offset.” Additionally , independent claim 72 contains
the same definition as claim 69.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007