Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
original and updated locations until the location is updated
(reply brief, pages 6).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the claimed “selectively preventing activity in the database
between the original location and update location” should be
broadly interpreted as it does not require locking a range of
records (answer, page 13). We do not agree with the Examiner’s
limited interpretation of the claimed feature such that it reads
on a lock on the target record alone. Not only does the
recitation of preventing the activity in the database between the
original and update locations simply refer to a portion of the
database starting from the original location and extending to the
update location, Appellants’ disclosure also clearly identifies
the bounds and the extent of such range. Starting on page 9,
line 19 of the specification, referring to Figures 2B and 2C, the
range of the claimed portion of the database is disclosed as:
For example, in the preferred embodiment, control is taken
of the partition 108 from which the row is being moved, the
partition 108 to which the row is being moved, and all
partitions 108 in between.
[Emphasis added.]
Therefore, the claimed preventing the activity in the
database is different from Lomet’s locking a portion of the data
that requires updating. Therefore, characterizing the record
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007