Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 5
Application No. 09/234,514
in said first phase; and performing a third phase of . . . retaining access
for reading concerned object versions. . . .
Giving the independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require a transaction to retain access to objects for reading object versions after
releasing locks on the objects.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural
Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the passage of Lorie cited by the examiner mentions that "when a read-
only query must access the most recent database version, it may be relabeled and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007