Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
teaches an in-memory database table because column 9, lines 58-67, of Pereira places
no constraint that the mapping table be stored in the form of a database table in
memory, expressly indicating that the mapping table can be stored as a table on a file
system, “which teaches away from the step of ‘locating the data in an in-memory
database table’...Pereira cannot guarantee that data to be retrieved [from the mapping
table] in response to a search request is located in an in-memory database table, i.e.,
database table in a memory. The use of mapping tables, which might reside in a
memory, does not correspond to storing real portions of a database in memory”
(principal brief-page 13).
The examiner’s response is that a “table that may be stored in the DBMS is
clearly a database table. Likewise, Pereira teaches that the table may also be stored in
memory. Claims 24 [sic, 25], 34, and 43 do not claim persistent storage of the table in
memory. For these reasons, the Pereira [sic] teaches ‘...an in-memory database
table...’ at col. 9, lines 62-66...” (answer-page 14).
We have reviewed the evidence before us and, while we view the instant
independent claims as rather broad in scope, we only determine the propriety of the
examiner’s rejection
and not the patentbility of the instant claimed subject matter.
It is clear, from the examiner’s explanation, that the examiner relies only on the
Pereira reference for a teaching of the claimed “in-memory database table,” specifically
referring to column 9, lines 62-66. Our study of this cited portion of Pereira shows only
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007