Appeal No. 96-1534
Application 07/888,991
amendment even though the examiner implied that such a change
would be significant. In view of our interpretation of the
claims discussed above, Li does not fully meet the recitations of
claim 28. Substep (b)(3) recites that a filtering of records is
made as they are accessed if the database file is below a pre-
selected size. This condition is independent of the conditions
set forth in substeps (b)(1) and (b)(2) and would take precedence
if it occurs. As appellants correctly point out, Li contains no
disclosure of testing the database file for a pre-selected size.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 28 are not
fully met by the disclosure of Li, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 28-30 as anticipated by the disclosure of Li.
We now consider the new rejection of claims 25-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Kuechler. These claims stand or fall together [reply brief, page
7]. Therefore, we will consider claim 28 as the representative
claim for this rejection. Although the examiner specifically
addresses claim 25 in the rejection, claim 28 is broader than
claim 25 so that the examiner’s reasoning applies to claim 28 as
well.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007