Appeal No. 2004-2258
Application 10/145,543
Appellants take the following position: They note that conventional cache designs
do not ensure that desired data will be present in memory when needed, and that when
the desired data is not in a cache, additional time is required to retrieve the data from
the database tables held in a secondary storage via I/O subsystems. To remedy this
problem, the instant invention, as claimed, “involves an in-memory database table that
holds the data to be retrieved” (principal brief-page 12). Appellants note that the
examiner acknowledges that Wittgreffe, Peltonen, and Hooper all fail to teach or
suggest the feature of “locating the data in an in-memory database table” and that the
examiner relies on Pereira for the use of an in-memory database table at column 9,
lines 60-66, by stating that a mapping table can be stored, e.g., on a file system or in
memory.
Appellants urge that Pereira creates a mapping table that maps rowids of the
source table to rowids of the rows inserted into the new table and that the mapping table
in Pereira “does not contain data useful to end users (e.g., in response to the recited
search request). Instead, the mapping table contains information regarding where rows
are unloaded from the source table and where they are stored in the new table...Thus,
Pereira fails to make up for the acknowledged deficiencies of Wittgreffe, Peltonen and
Hooper because Pereira also fails to teach or suggest ‘locating the data in an in-
memory database table’ in response to the received search request” (principal brief-
page 13).
In addition, appellants take issue with the examiner’s assertion that Pereira
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007