Appeal No. 2000-0240
Application No. 08/285,534
reference to the final rejection. For example, appellants reiterate at page 9 of the brief
that portion of the final rejection specifically discussing the searching means and then
proceed to argue at page 18 of the brief that the examiner has not addressed the
searching means. We find such arguments by appellants to be confusing and
unpersuasive.
We find that appellants’ format for presentation of arguments in the briefs to be
unnecessarily lengthy and of little use in determining whether a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness has been established and/or rebutted. With this said, we
relied substantially upon the presentation at the oral hearing to make our determin-ation.
When queried at the Oral Hearing with respect to the above discussion from the final
rejection concerning the persistent relocation map and searching/mapping of virtual
addresses to physical addresses to locate desired information, appellants’ representative
acknowledged that the memory address translation and mapping would have multiple
table/databases, but distinguished the use of “at least a logical database grouping a
plurality of said physical databases, said logical database being defined by logical
database information stored in at least one of said terminal device and said plurality of
information processors” as recited in the language of independent claim 39.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007