Appeal No. 2003-0032
Application No. 09/193,966
Transactions do not lock those records which they only
relocate from one page to another during operations like DR,
FC, FE, IR and UR.
Thus, the evidence provided by the Examiner fails to motivate the
skilled artisan to combine the prior art and lock a range of data
between the original location and the updated location when the
update changes the location of the record and at best, may even
teach away from such combination.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claims 1, as well as claims 22, and 43, which recite
similar features. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 22-25 and 43-46 over Mohan and
Lomet.
With respect to the rejections of the remaining claims, the
Examiner further relies on Friske for pausing step, on Graefe for
locations on different pages, on Kodavilla for partitioning and
on Vicik for degrees of concurrency (Office action, pages 4-13).
However, neither of these references overcomes the above
discussed deficiencies of the combination of Mohan and Lomet.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6-21, 27-42
and 48-63 cannot be sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007