Appeal No. 1997-4222
Application 08/182,886
prior to the filing date of the Milden patent (March 7, 1994).
In any event, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
2 through 6 under obviousness-type double patenting over claim
1 of Milden.
Assuming, arguendo, that the examiner is correct in
equating Milden’s formatted real threat data and threat/RWR
simulated threat track file data to the claimed multiple
databases each for storing data in the form of records and
also that the examiner is correct in equating the claimed
merging of the records to Milden’s “means for merging the
formatted real threat data with the threat/RWR simulated
threat track file data,” Milden’s claim 1 suggests nothing
about the “multiple bit word” or “plurality of multiple bit
words” of instant claims 2 and 3.
The examiner recognizes the difference but contends,
nevertheless, that it would have been obvious to format the
files of Milden such that the format would comprise a multiple
bit word in order to “increase” or “improve” processing speed.
We disagree. Whereas claim 1 of Milden merely combines
files into a merged file having all of the individual files
and then prioritizes the combined data, the instant claimed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007