Appeal No. 2002-2218
Application 09/322,698
and its discussion at page 13, lines 7-9; and the Abstract at
page 19, lines 2-7. The Summary of the Invention in the brief
confirms this and is consistent with these portions. Note brief,
page 5, line 12; page 6, lines 13-15 and page 7, lines 10-12.
Pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief contain appellants' most
focused view of the examiner's position with respect to Goldring
and their view of Goldring itself. At the top of page 2,
appellants rightly assert "the first critical defect in the
Examiner's rejection is the absolute lack of teaching in Goldring
of determining the age of the oldest active transaction using the
stored read identifiers, or that Goldring even discloses the use
of stored read identifiers at all." At the top of page 3 of the
reply brief, appellants assert "there is simply no teaching in
Goldring, and the examiner has not pointed to any substantive
evidence... that Goldring uses stored read transaction
identifiers for any purpose whatsoever." This is discussed
further at page 3 of the reply brief where Goldring is said to
fail to teach or suggest the storing of read identifiers.
Our study of Goldring leads us to essentially the same
conclusions as just noted from appellants' reply brief. Whereas
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007