Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
1984). The examiner may satisfy his/her burden only by showing some objective
teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art would lead the individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regard to the independent claims, it is the examiner’s position that Wittgreffe
teaches “receiving a search request” at column 3, lines 30-62, but does not teach
specifying the number of results, specifying the search start point, locating the data in a
database table, or the use of an in-memory database table.
The examiner turns to Peltonen for a teaching of specifying the number of results
and specifying the search starting point, citing column 16, lines 33-37, and column 18,
lines 51-59. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Peltonen
and Wittgreffe since both teach the use of databases with tables and the use of queries
for retrieving data from the databases.
The examiner recognizes that Peltonen does not teach locating data in a
database table and the use of an in-memory database table, so the examiner turns to
Hooper, at column 1, line 67, column 2, lines 1-3, and column 7, lines 45-47, for
“...locating the data in an ...database table,” and to Pereira, at column 9, lines 60-66, for
a teaching of “...in an in-memory database table...,” contending that it would have been
obvious to combine all of these references because Wittgreffe, Peltonen, Hooper, and
Pereira all teach the use of databases with tables, with Hooper and Pereira teaching the
use of in-memory access to data.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007