Appeal No. 2002-1758
Application No. 09/121,791
the existing node. Whereas Ishak describes updating a parent node to point to children nodes, the
instant claims describe a node or page temporarily creating a linkage to a sibling node being
created [see page 9 of the brief].
The examiner has not satisfactorily responded to appellants’ rather convincing arguments.
At pages 3-4 of the answer, the examiner contends that appellants’ argued distinctions are based
upon “features...not recited in the rejected claims.” We disagree. As appellants explain, the
claim limitation of “marking both pages as undergoing a split,” as set forth in claim 1, refers to
the disclosed side-entry link and accompanying split bits (brief-page 8). Reference to the
specification supports appellants’ explanation and such reference is permitted in order to ascribe
a meaning to a claimed term. Both independent claims 1 and 21 recite the allocation of a new
page at the same level (i.e., sibling node) as the existing page. Claim 21 is explicit in its
recitation of a “side-entry” storing a key value.
The examiner also takes issue with appellants’ argument regarding allocation of a new
page at the same level as the existing page. In particular, the examiner points to Roy’s
description of the splitting of a single node by allocating a new node, in Figure 3, and to Ishak’s
linking to new nodes in the splitting process. “It is clear from the fig. 2-6B that links at the same
level exist” (answer-page 4).
We are not quite sure of the point the examiner is trying to make. However, it is clear to
us that Ishak is concerned with updating a parent node to point to children nodes, and not to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007