Appeal No. 1999-1557
Application 08/650,397
(b) deleting all said records from said second
database system database; and
(c ) recreating said second database system database
by performing the interleaved steps of
(c.1) processing in both said first and said
second database system each said update as it occurs and
processing only in said first database system each said query
as it occurs, and
(c.2) copying each said record from said first
database system database to said second database system
database.
In rejecting Appellant’s claims, the Examiner relies
on two references:
Naito et al. (Naito) 5,060,185 Oct. 22, 1991
Strickland et al. (Strickland) 5,355,477 Oct. 11, 1994
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Naito. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16-19,
22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Naito. Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 13-15, 20 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Naito
and Strickland. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
Appellant and Examiner, we refer the reader to the Appellant’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007