Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
that a “mapping” may be stored in the form of a “table” in the data base management
system (DBMS) in memory, on a file system, etc. Thus, Pereira seems to be saying
that the mapping, not data, is stored in the table. This mapping identifies how certain
data will be treated, but the mapping is not the data itself. Accordingly, it is difficult to
see how any “data” would be located in the memory which stores the “mapping.” Yet,
the instant claims require that “data” be located in the in-memory database table and
the data must comprise, at least in part, that data upon which a search request is made,
in accordance with the claimed subject matter. The portion of Pereira cited by the
examiner does not indicate that such data is stored in any in-memory database table.
We do not agree with the examiner’s general statement that any table that may
be stored in the DBMS is a database table, as it relates to the instant claims. This is
because the instant claims, broad as they may be, require locating data in that in-
memory database table, and that data must comprise the searchable database. If not,
the claim requirement of locating data in a memory of a computer and locating that data
in response to a search request would have no meaning; that is, all of the data of the
database permitted to be searched must be in the in-memory database table. This is
clearly not the case in Pereira and the examiner has not indicated any other reference
as teaching the claimed location of data in an “in-memory database table.”
The database table referred to by the instant claims must be given the meaning
ascribed by the instant specification, since the meaning of this term appears to be in
dispute between appellants and the examiner. The bottom of page 1 of the instant
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007