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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007