Appeal No. 2002-1758
Application No. 09/121,791
further sets forth that the means for preserving concurrent access includes “a side-entry storing a
key value allowing a client traversing the B-Tree to determine whether to traverse to the new
page.”
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner asserts that
Roy and Ishak teach the invention substantially as claimed. Ishak
further teaches (I) allocating a new page at a level in the B-Tree
which is the same as the existing page and marking both pages as
undergoing a split and moving some of the key values from the
existing page to the new page [702 of fig. 7]. [Paper No. 5-page 3].
With regard to independent claim 2, the examiner asserts that Roy discloses the claimed
invention but for an explicit teaching of
means for preserving concurrent access by creating an entry in the
existing page which points to the new page, so that any other client
which is traversing the B-Tree at the point of the split will not be
blocked by the split while it is occurring although it has the same
functionality of splitting pages at insertion points [see the abstract].
However, Ishak teaches structural modification processes such as a
page splitting can be carried out on a page which is concurrently being
accessed by any other client [ab; 704, 706 of fig. 7; col. 4, lines 29-44].
[Paper No. 8-pages 3-4].
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to add Ishak’s features to
Roy “in order to increase access and performance in B-tree structures in which the traversal is not
blocked by the split which is currently active.” [Paper No. 8-page 4].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007