Nevertheless, it's inexcusable to be proposing a string matching algorithm without at least mentioning why suffix trees can't do the job. At the very least, showing that your algorithm beats suffix trees in any instantiation does wonders for credibility. For the record, suffix trees can be built online as well:
Sure, but they use a lot more space (even if you use suffix arrays instead of suffix trees) and are generally only worth if you search for more than one pattern on the same text.
In most academic papers I have read that deal with online pattern matching suffix arrays/trees are generally not compared.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kq55005qu6479276/