Appeal No. 2002-0614
Application No. 08/976,888
Appellant argues that the teachings of Walls relate to a
storage data structure built by an index builder which provide
for a system and method for indexing information stored in one or
more sources of information such as a database (brief, page 5).
Appellant points out that Walls merely discloses a continuous
indexer (col. 3, lines 50-55) that is configured to search one or
more files in order to provide the user with a continuously
updated index of information contained within the file system
(id.).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that “Walls teaches the same functionality of generating a file
system from the remote data processing and then storing the
retrieved file in the local memory” (answer, page 3). The
Examiner further relies on one of the field names listed in table
1 of Walls (col. 17, lines 40-49) and asserts that examining the
“Remote Location” field of the file that contains a binary
indicator determines if the first type of the file is a local or
remote while the feature of evaluating the command is inherent in
the system (answer, page 4).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Atlas
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007