Appeal No. 2001-1605
Application 08/735,168
fails to teach the sequences of the steps as recited in
Appellants’ claims. Appellants argue that the claims establish a
relationship between individual elements of the claim (the steps)
that must be taken into account when analyzing the claim for
anticipation. Appellants note that the Examiner randomly
hopscotches through Bireley and has not established clear
sequence other than arbitrarily signified by the Examiner. See
page 7 of the brief.
In response, the Examiner maintains that Bireley discloses
partitioning a database into several partitions and reading an
access request to such data wherein access to a partition table
is deemed to contain a plurality of partitions. The Examiner
points us to column 12, lines 20 through 63, and column 13, lines
13 through 27, of Bireley. The Examiner argues that the Bireley
partition tables are located in separate physical storage devices
which are accessed by query of a clarity. The Examiner argues
that the fact that the partition tables are located in separate
physical storage devices inherently requires a plurality of
partitions. The Examiner points us to column 6, lines 39 through
48, of Bireley. The Examiner also maintains that Bireley
discloses a lock manager which is deemed to lock a table
partition. The Examiner points us to column 20, lines 40 through
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007