Appeal No. 2004-1128
Application No. 10/099,121
'substantially identical' files." Appellant asserts (Brief, page
7 with similar statements at page 5 of the Reply Brief) that
Wlaschin teaches a pointer to a previous version of the document
"if said electronic document is updated from the previous
version. . . . Thus, Wlaschin teaches away from the present
invention" (emphasis ours). Appellant thus concludes that
neither Shnelvar nor Wlaschin teaches the limitation of claims 2
and 9.
First, we note that the examiner states (Answer, page 7)
that Shnelvar teaches using a pointer to a previous version when
there is a duplicate document so as to reduce the amount of
material stored. Appellant does not contest the combination of
Shnelvar with the main references to teach a pointer in place of
a duplicate copy of a document.
Second, we note that the examiner explains (Answer, pages 7-
8) that Wlaschin is required for the rejection because
"substantially identical" means that there has been an update
such that the two documents are different (i.e., not duplicates).
Since appellant's argument that Wlaschin teaches away from using
a pointer for documents that are "substantially identical,"
appellant apparently interprets the phrase "substantially
identical" to mean duplicates (and/or near duplicates).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007