Appeal No. 2006-1055 Application No. 09/752,355 Appellants’ response, in a nutshell, is that the combination of Muret and Tsuchida fails to disclose or suggest loading, storing, or managing “data from one or more transaction logs of one or more Internet servers” across “plural parallel processing modules” of a database system, and then “execut[ing] a database query across the parallel processing modules to select from the data all entries associated with a particular user and corresponding to a single session of that user,” as required by all of the instant claims. Appellants contend that the error in the examiner’s reasoning is that the examiner recognizes that Muret fails to disclose that the database system comprises plural parallel processing modules or executing a database query across the plural parallel processing modules to select the entries from the data, but the examiner fails to appreciate that the sessionizing technique described by Muret is not intended for execution in a parallel system and does not lend itself to a parallel execution across plural parallel processing modules. If Muret’s program is not created for execution in parallel across plural processing 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007