Ex parte HINTZ et al. - Page 7

          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                  
               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)                 

          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                        

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007