Appeal No. 2001-1605
Application 08/735,168
Rejection of Claims 10, 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note that claims 10, 16 and 30 recite the above
limitations discussed above due to their dependencies. We
further note that the Examiner relies on Bireley for the above
limitations. Furthermore, we find that Crus does not provide the
missing pieces. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 10, 16 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bireley in view of Crus.
Rejection of Claims 1, 5 through 7, 9, 21, 26, 27 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being Anticipated by Bhide.
Appellants argue that Bhide does not teach or suggest
partitioning a table of a database into a plurality of partitions
receiving a request for the access of the table, determining the
partition that contains data, locking the partition in response
to the request and granting a request to the partition as recited
in Appellants’ claim. In response, the Examiner maintains that
Bhide’s teaching of the locking of blocks reads on locking
partitions as claimed. See page 12 of Examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue that Bhide’s teaching of locking blocks
can-not read on Appellants’ claims because a block denotes a unit
of physical storage and not a partition of a database table that
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007