Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
Vicik et al. (Vicik) 5,835,904 Nov. 10, 1998
Friske et al. (Friske) 6,070,170 May 30, 2000
(filed Oct. 1, 1997)
Graefe et al. (Graefe) 6,122,644 Sep. 19, 2000
(filed Jul. 1, 1998)
Mohan, C. (Mohan), “ARIES/LHS: A Concurrency Control and
Recovery Method Using Write-Ahead Logging for Linear Hashing with
Separators,” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Data Engineering, (1993), pp. 243-252.
Claims 1-4, 22-25 and 43-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohan in view of Lomet.
Claims 6-10, 27-31 and 48-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohan and Lomet and further
in view of Friske.
Claims 11, 32 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mohan and Lomet and further in view of
Graefe and Kodavilla.
Claims 12, 13, 33, 34, 54 and 55 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohan and Lomet and
further in view of Vicik.
Claims 14, 15, 17-19, 35, 36, 38-40, 56, 57 and 59-61 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mohan and Lomet and further in view of Graefe.
Claims 16, 37 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mohan and Lomet and further in view of
Graefe and Friske.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007