Appeal No. 1996-3701
Application 08/076,587
Appellants argue that the Board has not correctly
interpreted the feature of claim 13, namely, “a data base dump
facility coupled to said transaction processing system for
storing said data base in response to a filling of said audit
trail storage area.” (Emphasis added). Appellants assert that
the misinterpretation of this feature and the resulting finding
that “an artisan, looking at APA, would have found it obvious to
dump the contents of the audit trail storage area 24 into the
dump tapes 50 in response to when said storage 24 gets filled up,
instead of doing the dumping periodically” is not dispositive of
claim 13. [Request for Rehearing, pages 2 and 3]. Appellants
argue that this is grounds for reversing our decision with
respect to claim 13.
We have reviewed our decision of September 17, 1999 in light
of Appellants' arguments in the request for rehearing. We agree
with Appellants that the above finding in regard to claim 13 is
erroneous. We, therefore, reverse our prior decision as to claim
13 for the reasons which follow.
We agree with Appellants that APA does not show or suggest
the dumping of the data base from storage areas (16, 18, 20 and
22) in response to any condition of the audit trail storage area
(24), much less the filling of the audit trail storage area as
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007