Appeal No. 2001-2303
Application No. 09/029,581
cited reference.”
We agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that Brunner
discloses a local cache database element 26 and a remote database
element 12. Although a comparison between the data content in a
cache and the data content in a master database is ordinarily
performed to ensure consistency between the data in the two
databases, Brunner does not, however, disclose a comparison of
any type between the cache 26 and the database 12. Certainly,
Brunner’s silence concerning the type of comparison performed for
data consistency does not mean that Brunner would have to use the
comparison performed by appellant. To suggest otherwise is to
fall victim to impermissible hindsight. The examiner’s argument
(answer, page 5) that “the applicant’s invention is anticipated
by the teaching of the prior art as represented in the
applicant’s brief” is without merit since appellant never
admitted that the claimed comparison with an “index entry” was a
part of the prior art. With respect to the examiner’s inherency
argument (answer, page 6), we agree with the appellant’s argument
(brief, page 10) that “any allegation that the specific
comparison . . . would necessarily flow from the teachings of
Brunner et al. is unfounded, particularly since Brunner et al.
fails to provide any detail on checking data consistency.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007