Appeal No. 2002-1950 Page 6
Application No. 09/234,514
restarted as an updating transaction and thereby acquire the necessary read locks on
all data." Col. 5, ll. 3-7. The examiner fails to show that the reference's relabeled
updating transaction, however, retains access to the most recent database version for
reading the version after releasing its read locks. The absence of the aforementioned
showing negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 1; of claims 4-10, 13, 16, 19, 22, which depend therefrom; of claim 24; and of
claims 25 and 27, which depend therefrom.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Brealey
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lorie. Absent a teaching or suggestion of a
transaction retaining access to objects for reading object versions after releasing locks
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007