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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007