Appeal No. 2001-1605
Application 08/735,168
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9, 11 through 15 and 17
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10, 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 15 and 17 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Bireley
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
America Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that Bireley fails to anticipate the steps
of partitioning a table in a database system into a plurality of
partitions; receiving a request for access to data in a table;
determining a partition of the plurality of partitions that
contains the data; and locking the partition in response to the
request as recited in Appellants’ claims. See pages 4 through 7
of Appellants’ brief. Appellants further argue that Bireley
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007