Appeal No. 1999-2714
Application No. 08/504,562
layer is a binary representation and higher levels are exclusive-or representations. (See
answer at page 17.) While we agree with all of the examiner’s statements, we find that
the examiner has not addressed the language of the claims which recite “ first and
second different hashing mathematical representations for each of a plurality of fixed
equal length character segments of said file.” Here, each representation must be of
each of a plurality of fixed equal length character segments of said file. Therefore, the
segments must be the same and of equal length and the examiner’s use of different
layers of for the two representations is unreasonable. Therefore, we will not sustain the
examiner rejection under 35 USC § 102 directed to the use of two representations.
Since, Metzner does not teach the use of two representations of the raw data in each of
a plurality of fixed equal length character segments of said file, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claims 50, 57, 63, 109, 113 and 124 and their dependent claims
51-56, 58-62, 111, 114-116, 125-129 under 35 USC § 102.
The examiner does not list out claims 92 and 95-100 in the statement of the
rejection, but discusses these claims at pages 7-8 of the answer. The examiner
maintains that Metzner teaches the use of an offset as recited in independent claim 92 ,
at page 728, but we find no such teaching of the use of an offset in Metzner.4 We are
under the impression that these claims should have been included under 35 USC § 103
4 With respect to dependent claim 95, we do not find that the examiner has rejected the
intermediate dependent claims 93 and 94 under the same grounds of rejection.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007