Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 4
Application No. 09/234,514
access the object for reading data of the object. This also teaches the access to the
object is not closed after the update." (Id.) The appellant argues, "[n]othing in Lorie et
al. shows, teaches or suggests that a transaction retains access for reading concerned
object versions after a second phase (i.e., after locks are released). . . ." (Appeal Br.
at 9.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
database transactions are managed by locking in two phases, wherein a
first phase includes a request for access to objects affected by said
transaction and locking of said objects after access thereto has been
obtained, wherein a second phase includes committing said transaction,
and wherein all locks set in said first phase are released, . . .
characterised [sic] in that said transaction retains said access for reading
concerned object versions after said second phase. . . .
Similarly, independent claim 24 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
performing a first phase of requesting access to objects affected by a
transition, locking said objects after access thereto has been obtained,
and performing all object changing actions by said transaction; performing
a second phase of committing said transaction and releasing all locks set
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007