Appeal No. 2004-0663
Application No. 09/375,260
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites “indicating, on the computer,
whether the change is a global change or a local change; and when the local database
on the computer is synchronized with a main database on another computer,
transmitting only global changes from the local database to the main database and not
transmitting local changes.” Appellants argue that Mendez does not teach indicating
whether a change is a global or local change and using this indication as a condition to
transmitting the change to a main database. (See brief at page 7.) Appellants argue
that while Mendez teaches local and global computers, all of the change data are
transmitted and there is no indication of a local change which is not transmitted at the
time of synchronization. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants. From our
review of the teachings of Mendez identified by the examiner, we find no clear or implicit
teaching of the claimed indication of local changes or global changes and use thereof in
the transmission to a main database. The examiner maintains that columns 1, 2, 8, 9,
11 and 12 of Mendez support transmission of global changes. Additionally, the
examiner contends that Mendez transmits less data by only transmitting the changes.
(See final rejection pages 3-4, and answer at pages 4-5.) While we agree that Mendez
is similar in transmitting only change data, we find no teaching that Mendez selectively
transmits less than all of the change data. Therefore, the examiner has not shown that
Mendez teaches all of the claimed limitations, and has not established a prima facie
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007