Ex parte IRVIN R. STRAUSS, et al. - Page 7

          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            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007