Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis supported
by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the
holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 22-25 and 43-46
over Mohan and Lomet, Appellants contend the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claimed range of database for which
activity is prevented as any selected portion of the database
between the original and the update location (supplemental brief,
page 7 and reply brief, page 5). Appellants further argue that
Mohan’s acquiring a lock on the target record is not equivalent
to the claimed selectively preventing activity on a range of
records in the database (brief, page 6, supplemental brief, page
6 and reply brief, page 6). Additionally, Appellants assert that
the prior art locking of a range of records in the context of an
update does not teach or suggest preventing activity between the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007