Appeal No. 2004-0933
Application 09/256,680
The fact that Pongracz describes a backup system does not imply
that it is doing the same thing as the claims. Nevertheless, we
proceed to the limitations in the body of claim 1.
The examiner finds that Pongracz teaches the claim step of
"creating a linked list of application components installed on
the computer system" at column 4, lines 23-36 et seq. (FR2).
Appellants argue that this portion of Pongracz "does not,
directly or indirectly, mention a linked list, the creation of a
linked list, or application components" (Br5). It is argued that
Pongracz does not disclose creating a linked list of application
components installed on the computer system (Br5). It is argued
that Pongracz makes a list of backup files corresponding to the
filename of the requested file, but does not create a linked list
of application components installed on a computer (Br6).
Appellants argue that Pongracz uses reset stamps to identify the
backup files and not a linked list of application components and
other features in the claims (Br6).
The examiner responds that (EA4):
As noted by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, Pongracz' list
of files includes all files pertaining to a requested
filename or application including all components of said
requested filename or application. Thus, as conceded by
Appellants, by disclosing a list of all files or components
related to the requested application, Pongracz implicitly
teaches the retrieval of a list of components of the
requested application.
- 5 -5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007