Appeal No. 1997-0920
Application 08/274,123
satisfy the query." Dickinson does not have query symbol
sequence information associated with the textual block
identifiers as previously discussed. We find that Dickinson
does not disclose the claimed "query processor."
For the reasons stated above, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation based on the
express limitations of claim 2. The rejection of claims 2-6
is reversed.
Claims 7-16
Claim 7 is taken as representative of claims 7-16.
The Examiner found that Kucera discloses a memory, a
processor, and a controller but does not disclose the step of
sorting for which the Examiner applies Dickinson (FR3-4).
Appellant argued with respect to independent claims 7, 12, and
16 that the Examiner relied on Kucera for the memory,
processor, and controller and "[t]he Examiner further relied
on the Dickinson patent as teaching the match token
generation, sorting and query processing recited in those
claims substantially as recited in claim 2" (Br6). Appellant
argued that Dickinson does not disclose those operations. The
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007