Appeal No. 2002-1767
Application 09/362,530
OPINION
Appellant notes that "[t]he examiner calls the 'file key' of
Beauchese [sic] a 'first identification'" (Br9). We agree with
this interpretation of the examiner's rejection because the
examiner relies on column 3, lines 51-60, for the "first field"
with a "first identification" (EA3). Appellant argues that the
"file key" of Beauchesne: (1) does not uniquely identify a
reference data record; and (2) the identification under the "file
key" of Beauchesne is not placed in two fields of a single data
record (Br9-10; Br11). Appellant also argues that to the extent
the examiner relies on Beauchesne's "pair of key values" in the
advisory action, the pair of key values refers to "ON" and "OFF"
fields which: (1) do not have the same value; and (2) do not
uniquely identify a data record or a table entry (Br11). We are
in full agreement with these arguments. Thus, we are puzzled why
the examiner has maintained the rejection. We look to the
examiner's response to the arguments in the examiner's answer.
The examiner states that "appellants [sic] are interpreting
the claims very narrow[ly] without considering the broad
teachings of the references used in the rejection" (EA18). The
examiner discusses the teachings of Beauchesne (at EA18-19), but
fails to explain where it teaches a "first identification" stored
in first and second fields of a first reference data record,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007