Appeal No. 2002-1767
Application 09/362,530
where the "first identification uniquely identifies the first
reference data record." The examiner states (EA18):
Beauchesne has shown (col. 2, lines 10-65, product table)
that each index entry has a reference key and a component
key wherein each of them uniquely identifying [sic,
identifies] the record. It is important to note that
claim 1 does not require that the first and second field be
on the same record ("field for a first reference record").
The reference key and the component key described at
column 2 clearly do not contain the same identification, so we do
not know what point the examiner intends to make. We conclude
that the examiner's interpretation of a "first field for a first
reference data record" and a "second field for a first reference
data record" in claim 1 as not needing to be fields on the same
record is erroneous. Even if the examiner was correct, the
examiner has not shown two fields for the same record having the
same identification. Moreover, the examiner does not deal with
the language of claims 15, 18, and 21. We find no way that
Beauchesne can anticipate claims 1 and 15. Appellant's arguments
in the reply brief (RBr2-3) are also persuasive. Although the
names are similar, the "pair of key values" in Beauchesne
(col. 4, line 9) does not anticipate appellant's "paired keys"
(specification, p. 3, line 9). The anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 3, 15-17, 23, and 27 is reversed.
Vijaykumar does not cure the deficiencies of Beauchesne with
respect to independent claims 1 and 15. Independent claims 18
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007