Appeal No. 1997-1933
Application No. 08/299,715
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 12
and 13.
Appellants' invention as set forth in claim 12 involves
setting an indicator to effectively lock out other processes
from the operation request. In response to the indicator, a
mutually exclusive semaphore lock can be released prior to
completion of the transaction. Appellants' arguments are all
directed to the claimed indicator and the relationship between
the indicator and the mutually exclusive semaphore lock.
Therefore, we will limit our discussion to those elements.
As asserted by appellants (Brief, page 6), in the
rejection, the examiner makes no mention of an indicator, and,
therefore, fails to point to where such an indicator is
suggested by Oracle SQL or Oracle DBA. Similarly, appellants
contend (Brief, page 5) that in the rejection, the examiner
fails to indicate any portion of Oracle SQL or Oracle DBA
which suggests that the mutually exclusive semaphore lock is
released in response to the setting of the indicator and prior
to completion of the transaction. We agree with appellants.
The explanation of the rejection is completely devoid of any
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007