Appeal No. 2002-1109
Application 09/316,436
to be discussed. Appellant argues that since Haegele discloses
only a single table with a single segment, it does not disclose
the two logging segments set out in claim 13 (Br13). However,
nothing in claim 13 precludes the two segments from being part of
the same table, e.g., there is no limitation that the logging
segments are stored separately. The only question is whether
Fig. 2 meets all the limitations for both the first and second
logging segments.
The main difference between claim 13 and claim 1 has to do
with the claiming of the second logging segment. Claim 13
recites: "second logging segment for storing file references,
each entry in the logging segment specifying a data lot and an
attribute designated for the data lot." Referring to Fig. 2,
each "entry in the logging segment" reads on a row of the table.
The "file references" and part of the entry "specifying a data
lot" read on the CSOID, LOID, and IOID, which are used as numeric
keys to index the table of Fig. 2 to the relational database
(file) to retrieve data from the database (col. 5, lines 46-51),
where a "file reference" is interpreted to be a reference to the
relational database. Claim 13 does specifically claim "a file
number" and a "file location" as in claim 5. The part of the
entry "specifying . . . an attribute designated for the data lot"
reads on the word in the word column. Thus, we find that
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007