Appeal No. 1996-1243
Application No. 08/226,224
encountered in the search of said other path, comparing
transactions encountered in the search of said other path to
said parent transaction, and terminating the searching and
recording of transactions of said other path before an end of
said other path when encountering said parent transaction.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Weinblatt 3,579,194 May 18, 1971
Trinchieri 4,224,664 Sep. 23, 1980
R. Agrawal et al. (Agrawal), “The Performance of Alternative
Strategies for Dealing with Deadlocks in Database Management
Systems,” IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. SE-
13, No. 12, December 1987, pages 1349-1363.
Claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35-43 and 45-55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
of the invention. Claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35-43 and 45-55 also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Trinchieri in view of Agrawal
and further in view of Weinblatt.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007