Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
locking of Loment as the claimed step of preventing activity in a
portion of the database from the original location and extending
to the updated location is simply incorrect.
We also remain unconvinced by the Examiner’s argument that
Mohan and Lomet may be properly combined since both references
teach methods of ensuring concurrency by simply locking the
several affected records (answer, page 15). Notwithstanding the
recognition of the problem of accessing the database when an
update is required, the Examiner has not pointed to any part of
the references that would have contained such suggestion. Thus,
we agree with Appellants that such combination is made only in
terms of the problems and solutions disclosed by Appellants
(supplemental brief, page 7). Whereas, our reviewing court
requires that particular findings must be made as to the reason
the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention,
would have selected and modified the prior art teachings for
combination in the manner claimed. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365,
1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In fact, although the part of page 246 of Mohan (near the
top of the right-hand column), as noted by the examiner (answer,
page 12), mentions locking of the records, the records remain
unlocked when they are only relocated:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007