Appeal No. 1997-0243
Application 08/168,976
creating the particular type of data structure. Furthermore,
Knuth does not cure this deficiency. Therefore, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Crus and
Knuth.
Rejection using Haderle
The Examiner asserts [answer, page 6] that “Haderle
substantially teaches the steps of the claimed invention
except does not explicitly indicate a single-phase integrity
checking. ... It would have been obvious ... to consider the
method of Haderle a single phase method because Hadrele [sic,
Haderle] teaches that, 'it is a matter of design choice', to
update the primary indexes in a load phase or a subsequent
phase (line[s] 44-50 of col. 6).”
Appellants argue that “[t]he mere fact that Haderle
requires a load phase (i.e., [the] use of working data set)
distinguishes
the claimed single pass method from Haderle” [reply brief,
page 6].
In response, the Examiner points to col. 12 and col. 7 of
Haderle to support his position. Appellants counter
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007