Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334
understood in the art. Appellants proffer a definition, in view of provided
evidence, that “[d]atabases are computerized information storage and
retrieval systems.” (Br. 10.)
By Appellants’ definition, we find that Trainin describes a database
containing data, as required by claim 31. Code that is executed by task A
(program 220; Fig. 2) writes and retrieves data from the data portion and the
stack portion of the memory. Trainin thus discloses a computerized
information storage and retrieval system. With respect to Appellants’
further argument (Br. 10) that claim 31 recites both a “database” and
“memory,” we do not see where the claim requires that the database and the
memories be mutually exclusive. Even if read as mutually exclusive, the
“database” as claimed could be in a third “amount” of memory, distinct from
the first and second “amounts” of memories that are recited.
Appellants also suggest that claim 31 distinguishes over the reference
because the term “operator” should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, and is thereby limited to “databases.” (Br. 12; Reply Br. 9.)
The argument is unconvincing because, first, Appellants have not shown that
Trainin fails to disclose a database. Second, claim 31 does not recite an
“operator” in means plus function terms, but recites “means for applying” an
operator. The “means for applying an operator” is, according to Appellants,
a computer that contains appropriate code and data to achieve “database
functionality.” (Br. 3; Specification 27: 5-8.)
Trainin describes code and data that achieve “database functionality,”
to the extent claimed. The claim 31 required functions are to “partially
process a portion of data from the database, using a first amount of memory”
and “to process an additional portion of data which remains to be processed,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013