Appeal No. 2000-0240
Application No. 08/285,534
While we agree with the examiner that the language of independent claim 39 is broad
enough to read on the mapping of addresses, we find error in the examiner’s application of
the prior art to the language of claim 39. Specifically, the examiner’s statement that the
use of the virtual address relocation map “to locate data in one of the
plurality of physical databases, in response to an application program's request for data,
using a virtual address as the logical identifier of the data” would appear have the correct
words of the claim language, but in the wrong order/arrangement. While there are plural
tables/databases used in mapping, from our review of Weinreb, it is our understanding that
they are not grouped into a logical database defined by logical database information
stored in at least on of said terminal devices as required by the language of independent
claim 39.
Appellants argue that Weinreb does not teach “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.” (See brief at page 18.) We agree with appellants as discussed
above.
Similarly, appellants argue that all the independent claims 51, 76, 77, 79, and 80
recite limitations pertaining to the grouping of physical databases into logical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007