Appeal No. 2003-1062
Application No. 09/004,265
means for detecting issuance of a read-lock-request for a
target view tuple and, in response, locking tuples in the
database which include a superset of tuples from which the target
view tuple is derived.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Reiter et al. (Reiter) 5,666,526 Sep. 9, 1997
Colby et al., “Algorithms for deferred view maintenance”, ACM
International Conference on Management of Data and Symposium on
Principles of Database Systems, June 3-6, 1996, pp. 469-480.
“Locking in a Binary Relational Data Data Base”, IBM Technical
Disclosure Bulletin, (IBM) vol. 25, No. 10, March 1983, pp. 5027-
5028.
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers IBM and Colby with
regard to claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-28, adding Reiter with regard
to claims 3 and 17.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007