Appeal No. 2004-0933
Application 09/256,680
Appellants argue that the examiner misrepresents their
remarks about Pongracz by omitting the word "backup" used in the
brief, "thus leading the Board to believe that Appellants in fact
believe or 'concede' that Pongracz discloses the creation of a
list of all files or components of an application" (RBr2). It is
argued that appellants' position is exactly the opposite and the
list of backup files in Pongracz is not equivalent to a linked
list of application components (RBr3).
We agree that appellants never said that Pongracz disclosed
creation of a list of all files or components of an application.
Appellants only stated that Pongracz makes a list of backup files
corresponding to a requested filename. In the examiner's first
sentence above, there is only support for the following statement
(additions underlined and deletions in brackets]: "As noted by
Appellants in the Appeal Brief, Pongracz' list of files includes
all backup files pertaining to a requested filename [or
application including all components of said requested filename
or application]." We find no support for the examiner's second
sentence. The examiner misapprehends appellants' arguments.
The examiner also notes that Pongracz teaches a linked list
of reset stamps, where the reset stamps are used to identify the
backup files associated with a requested filename or application
- 6 -6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007