Appeal No. 2004-2227
Application No. 09/726,868
Remarks portion of the answer beginning at page 16 that the noted feature
is not recited in the rejected claims.
In those instances in which the examiner asserts that this
simultaneity of the storing function is said to occur, the examiner only
relies upon portions of columns 3 and 4 of Burns. Our study of this
reference leads us to the same conclusion as asserted by appellants in the
brief and reply brief that the reference does not address this feature. Even
the flow chart versions of the principal embodiment in Figure 5 and the
alternative embodiment in Figure 6 of Burns do not indicate to us the
concept of storing a first and second delta difference data at the same
point in time/simultaneously as recited in some fashion in each
independent claim on appeal. It is believed that this is the case in the
context of Burns since Burns does not essentially address the basic concept
otherwise set forth in each independent claim on appeal that at least two
types of delta difference data must be resident in the memory to
accommodate first new data and old data and second new data with
respect to old data. Only a single or one type of old data such as the prior
file 200a of Burns and a single update 206 appear to be contemplated by
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007